Under Section 312 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker must provide notice to his or her employer that he or she “received an injury, described in ordinary language, in the course of his employment on or about a specified time, at or near a place specified.” This…
Articles Posted in Case Law Update
Offer of Modified Work to Injured Worker in PA Need Not Describe Duties
One of the ways a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in PA can be relieved of paying workers’ comp benefits to an injured worker in Pennsylvania is by showing that employment is “available” to the injured worker, as described previously in our blog. Prior decisions by both the Supreme Court of…
Injured Worker in PA Not Entitled to Rate of Higher Paying Job
Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, when an injured worker in PA is disabled from his or her job due to a work injury, the injured worker is entitled to workers’ compensation wage loss benefits. This rate is based on the earnings the injured worker had prior to the injury.…
Contradictory Medical Testimony Cannot Support Finding of Fact by Workers’ Comp Judge
When a PA workers’ compensation claim is denied by the insurance carrier, it is up to the injured worker to file a Claim Petition. In litigating a Claim Petition before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), the injured worker bears the burden to prove that he or she suffered an injury,…
No Suspension of PA Workers’ Comp Benefits for Voluntary Removal from Labor Market Unless Employer Proves Injured Worker Voluntarily Retired
Cases dealing with benefits stopping in PA workers’ compensation, due an alleged “retirement” of the injured worker, are frequent on our blog. Usually, Pennsylvania Courts are reading the PA Workers’ Compensation Act ever more strictly. A recent case, however, gives hope to the injured worker in Pennsylvania. In Keene v.…
Pain and Continuing Effects of Spinal Surgery Does Not Preclude Termination of Workers’ Compensation Benefits in PA
In Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matters, a workers’ comp insurance carrier can only get a “Termination” of benefits when the injured worker is “fully recovered” from his or her injury. This sounds like, and should be, a difficult standard for the insurance carrier to meet. Unfortunately, as happens too often in…
Medical Treatment in PA Workers’ Comp Not Reasonable or Necessary Because No Significant Improvement
Utilization Review is the proper course of action when either party in a PA workers’ compensation case questions whether medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. We have discussed this process in a previous blog entry. Since the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial legislation, intended by its creators to provide…
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Accepts Appeal in Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap)
Previously, we posted a blog entry on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision in Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap). This was the decision where the Commonwealth Court was unmoved when the injured worker applied for every job in a Labor Market Survey and found none available to…
Whether Injured Worker Voluntarily Left Labor Market, and Whether Injured Worker Subsequently Re-Entered Labor Market, Are Within Purview of PA Workers’ Compensation Judge
The issue of “retirement” and “voluntary withdrawal from the labor market” is one we see often in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation. We have had blog entries on how applying for Social Security Retirement benefits can impact the receipt of PA workers’ comp benefits, and how receipt of pension benefits can have…
PA Supreme Court Accepts Appeal in Robinson
Back in October, we blogged about the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), which addressed what caused a presumption that an injured worker “retired,” entitling the workers’ comp insurance carrier to a suspension of workers’ compensation benefits. The decision…