Articles Posted in Case Law Update

We have expressed our displeasure for how the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act treats mental/emotional injuries. As long as the cause of the injury is purely mental/emotional, any resulting disability is only compensable if the cause represents an “abnormal working condition.” The standard for this test varies according to the job in question; a police office, firefighter or other first responder would have a greater burden of proof than an accountant, chef or automobile mechanic, simply because their job tends to expose them to more shocking events.

This issue is dear in our hearts, since we have a case we have discussed on our blog previously, highlighting this ridiculous standard. For those who do not recall, we represent a liquor store clerk who was the victim of an armed robbery. Understandably, the clerk was then disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board had the gall to deny the claim, saying that armed robbery at one of their stores was not “abnormal.” (It offends us as taxpayers, and citizens, that the agency openly embraces such incompetence by knowingly exposing their employees to danger, rather than make any effort at a solution).

The case was litigated, with both medical experts agreeing that the clerk had post-traumatic stress disorder, and that he was unable to return to that employment. In defense, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (LCB) showed their training process, which included how to handle an armed robbery, the location and function of panic buttons, and the “open safe” key. All of the training materials, however, stated that the occurrence of armed robbery in a liquor store was “rare,” and that this was an “unlikely event.” Neither the clerk, nor any of the four witnesses presented by the LCB, was ever the victim of an armed robbery. Indeed, the manager of the store at which the clerk worked was not even aware of the procedure following a robbery. The store had panic buttons installed, but did not have any guards.

The general rule in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation is that if a work injury makes you unable to work, you should be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. One of the exceptions to this rule is when the loss of wages is due to some reason unrelated to the work injury.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed this issue in Brewer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (E2 Payroll & Staffing Solutions). The Claimant injured his low back when he was pinned by a forklift. As is their known policy, the employer had the hospital take a drug test of Claimant after the injury. Claimant failed the drug test, and admitted he used cocaine and marijuana a few days before the work injury. Since the employer has a zero-tolerance policy on drug use, Claimant was fired immediately.

Claimant filed a Claim Petition, seeking payment of his lost wages. In the litigation, the doctor secured by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier testified that the incident at work had caused a herniated disc in the lumbar spine, and that this damaged disc was irritating a nerve (a condition called “radiculopathy”), but that Claimant was capable of working at a light duty position. The employer had a representative testify that light duty work would have been available to Claimant, if he had not been terminated for failing the drug test. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted the Claim Petition, but suspended wage loss payments, finding the loss in earnings to be unrelated to the work injury. This was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB).

Fresh from the PA Supreme Court decision in City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), comes a decision from the Commonwealth Court, again addressing the interplay between the concept of “retirement” and the continued entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania.

In the matter of Fitchett v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (School District of Philadelphia), the primary issue was actually procedural, rather than whether the “retirement” was proven, or which side had the burden of proof. Though other Petitions were pending, the relevant one was a Petition for Termination, alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injury. Notably, in an “interlocutory” order (a temporary order, not usually subject to appeal), the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted Defendant an offset for both a pension and Social Security Retirement (SSR) benefits being received by the Claimant.

While testifying in defense to the Petition for Termination, Claimant was asked whether she considered herself retired. Claimant had responded, “Well, I’m collecting retirement.” In subsequent testimony, she clarified that if not for her work injuries, she had planned to continue working. When asked directly whether she was retired, however, Claimant responded, simply, “yes.” Again, Claimant later clarified that she meant she had to leave her employer due to her injuries. Claimant testified she had not looked for any work, and forms from her treating doctors, wherein Claimant described her occupation as “retired,” were offered into evidence.

As readers of our blog surely know by now, the relationship between the “retirement” of an injured worker and continued entitlement to Pennsylvania workers’ compensation disability benefits is a frequent topic in appellate litigation. The decisions in both the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are regular enough that we, as attorneys who limit our practice to representing injured workers in PA, need to stay informed to best protect our clients.

Back in 2010, we discussed the decision of the Commonwealth Court of PA in the case of City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson). In that case, the Commonwealth Court established that the taking of a disability pension, as opposed to a retirement pension, was not an indication of retirement. Therefore, the Court held that the workers’ compensation insurance carrier still had to prove that work was available to the injured worker in order to obtain a suspension of her workers’ compensation disability benefits. In 2011, we reported that the workers’ comp insurance carrier had filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (Requested “allocatur”) and the Court granted the allowance of appeal.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision, affirming the decision rendered by the Commonwealth Court. However, whereas the Commonwealth Court drew a distinction between a “disability” pension (as in this case) and a “retirement” pension, the Supreme Court held that the taking of a pension, regardless of what type of pension, does not (by itself) trigger any type of presumption (or in other words, a workers’ comp insurance carrier must prove more than that the injured worker took a pension to show that the injured worker “retired,” to obtain a suspension of the workers’ compensation disability benefits).

Several years ago, we discussed the decision in Weney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mac Sprinkler Systems, Inc.), wherein the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania precluded an injured worker from amending a description of injury, because the injured worker had previously filed a Petition to Review and did not address that body part or diagnosis.

We found that decision to be overly harsh, unfair to the injured worker, and counter-productive for the resolution of cases (in essence, the Court punished the injured worker for agreeing to resolve the first Petition to Review by Stipulation, rather than go through the litigation process). Now, for injured workers, things have gone from bad to worse.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in DePue v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (N. Paone Construction, Inc.), had another opportunity to address this issue, and again elected to punish the injured worker for resolving some aspect of his case. We are again mystified as to why the appellate system insists on sending a message that resolution is full of dangers and is, perhaps, best avoided.

As we have previously noted, undocumented workers in Pennsylvania are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, but such benefits can be stopped when the injured worker is no longer totally disabled.

What a workers’ comp insurance carrier must prove to stop benefits in this situation was examined recently in the matter of Ortiz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Raul Rodriguez). Here, the injured worker fell from a ladder and fractured his leg and ankle. Since the employer had no workers’ comp insurance, the injured worker filed a Claim Petition against the Uninsured Employers’ Guaranty Fund (UEGF).

During the litigation before the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), the injured worker went back to work, albeit on a part-time basis. The WCJ granted the Claim Petition and awarded ongoing workers’ comp benefits, based on the injured worker’s earnings. UEGF did not appeal this decision.

When an injured worker in Pennsylvania goes back to modified duty work, and then loses that job through no fault of his own, typically the injured worker is entitled to a reinstatement of benefits, back to total disability benefits. Of course, as always, there are exceptions to the rule. One of the exceptions is when an injured worker’s benefits are modified by a finding of “bad faith.”

We saw this issue addressed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Napierski v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Scobell Company, Inc.). Here, the injured worker, a plumber, hurt his leg. The injury was accepted as compensable by the workers’ comp insurance carrier and total disability benefits were started.

To avoid continued payment of workers’ compensation benefits, the workers’ comp insurance carrier then lowered itself to the use of “funded employment,” a disgraceful, yet perfectly legal, tactic. The employer paid a company (Expediter) to have another company (IDI) hire the injured worker, with the original employer paying the salary (if it sounds a little fishy, well . . . that’s because it is).

Once an injured worker in Pennsylvania establishes that he or she is disabled from work, due to the work injury, typically the workers’ compensation benefits continue (at the “temporary total disability” rate) until either the injured worker goes back to work, fully recovers, settles the case, or, loses litigation which shows that the injured worker has a “wage earning capacity.”

This last situation is often the one leading to the most unfair results. Recently, in North Pittsburgh Drywall Co., Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Owen), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which had been affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), and ruled that benefits should be suspended (or at least modified, depending on the earnings), when the injured worker had no transportation to get to a modified job.

The injured worker in this case hurt his right wrist while doing his job in 2001. About a week after the work injury, his car was repossessed (there was no credited allegation that the repossession had anything to do with the injury or the delayed receipt of workers’ compensation benefits). The injury was accepted as work-related by the workers’ comp insurance carrier, who issued a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). In 2003, the employer offered the injured worker a modified duty job, the duties of which were approved by his treating physician. The job was located about 90 minutes from the injured worker’s home, about the same as the pre-injury position. Unfortunately, at that point, the injured worker still had no car.

Not long ago, we discussed our belief that the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and PA workers’ comp insurance industry will soon be gearing up to have legislation introduced to curtail the rights of injured workers in PA. As we mentioned, the Utilization Review (UR) process is squarely on their radar for reform. Considering the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently denied an injured worker’s access to strong pain medication she testified she needed to relieve her intense pain, one must wonder how much more reform they would like.

In Bedford Somerset MHMR v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Turner), the injured worker was hurt in 1987 and underwent two surgeries on her lumbar spine as a result of her work injury. She was left with several diagnoses, including arachnoiditis, failed spinal fusion surgery, small fiber neuropathy, chronic pain syndrome, discitis, osteomyelitis and spinal stenosis, any or all of which can account for tremendous pain.

Given her severe pain, the injured worker was understandably taking heavy-duty medications. As has become custom in such situations, the ever-sympathetic insurance carrier filed a UR, alleging the mediations were not reasonable and necessary. The UR reviewer issued a determination finding that Fentanyl patches, and periodic office visits to the prescribing physician, were reasonable and necessary, but that the use of Fentanyl lozenges were not.