Articles Posted in Case Law Update

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, and throughout legal process generally, once a matter has been decided, the parties cannot try the matter again. This is called the concept of Res Judicata.

Often, for any of a number of reasons, an attorney representing an injured worker asks a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to mark a pending Claim Petition “withdrawn, without prejudice.” This allows the injured worker to continue his fight another day. If a Claim Petition is dismissed “with prejudice,” it cannot be refiled. Obviously, this is a critical distinction.

In Boyertown Foundry and ESIS Wilmington WC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal

One aspect of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation system we (thankfully) do not often address is what is known as a “fatal claim,” where the employee is killed in the work accident. This can, of course, occur in the injury itself, or it can occur as a consequence of the original injury.

The Commonwealth Court of PA recently dealt with this latter issue in J.D. Landscaping v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Heffernan). Here, the employee injured his low back (specifically, he suffered a herniated disc at L4-5, and a lumbar strain and sprain). As a consequence of the work injury, he was taking copious amounts of medications. Unfortunately, the injured worker died as a result of “multiple drug intoxication.”

What makes this case even more interesting, is that, before the death of the injured worker, a Utilization Review (UR) determined that the ongoing use of medications was neither reasonable nor necessary. The last prescription which was filled was prescribed by a different doctor, though a member of the same practice as the doctor subject to the UR (and, remember, a UR only binds the specific doctor against whom it was filed).

We have previously tackled the issue of reinstating benefits under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act. Then, though, we were focusing on how an injured worker can get his or her benefits reinstated. A recent case from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addresses an even stickier issue – whether the injured worker has a burden to demonstrate continuing disability after the reinstatement. As you have probably learned by now, the answer is not black and white.

In Brian Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), the Court affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which reinstated benefits for a period of time, before ordering such benefits suspended. Here, the injured worker returned to gainful employment after a 2005 work injury, causing his benefits to be suspended. When he had a recurrence of his symptoms, again rendering him disabled, he filed a Petition for Reinstatement, as of November 1, 2006.

In the ensuing litigation before the WCJ, the injured worker testified three different times, the last of which was on April 24, 2008. At that time, he testified that he had trouble standing or walking, and he required the use of a cane. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier subsequently offered a surveillance tape of the injured worker, taken on that very day he testified on April 24, 2008. Here, the injured worker was seen limping and using a cane as he entered the hearing office. Later that day, though, he was seen walking freely, without the need for a cane, bending, twisting and otherwise acting in direct contrast to his presentation to the WCJ.

Generally speaking, the PA workers’ compensation system is a “no fault” system. It usually doesn’t matter why an employee gets hurt, as long as he or she was doing his or her job at the time. As with most rules, of course, there are exceptions. One exception to this rule is when a work injury is suffered through the violation of a positive work order.

One common thread in cases which discuss the “violation of a positive work order” defense is an incredibly stupid action on the part of an injured worker. A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in Habib v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (John Roth Paving Pavemasters), did not deviate far from this thread.

In this case, the employee, a laborer, was awaiting a delivery of asphalt. To pass the time, he elected to see if he could break a bowling ball with a sledgehammer. The employee struck the bowling ball once, and it cracked. The foreman then told him to “knock it off.” Undaunted, the employee smashed the ball again, causing a piece of the ball to strike the employee in the eye (leading to a loss of his eye).

How the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system handles undocumented workers is a frequently misunderstood topic, which we have previous addressed. We mentioned that undocumented workers are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits as a general rule, thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Astudillo).

This result was intended to defeat the tremendous incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants. If such workers were not eligible for PA workers’ comp benefits, an employer could simply discard the worker when he or she was injured. Employers in PA, as well as throughout our Country, are already required to ascertain a potential employee is eligible to work in the United States. Sadly, employers regularly disregard such Federal laws, apparently without any official retribution.

On the other hand, the PA Supreme Court also recognized that the immigration status of an injured worker is relevant to an injured worker’s employment status. Therefore, an undocumented worker is entitled to PA workers’ comp benefits as long as the injured worker is totally disabled. Once the injured worker is released to any type of work, however, the reason the injured worker is not employed is the immigration status. As such, once an undocumented worker is released back to any type of gainful employment, a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation insurance carrier can obtain a suspension of wage loss benefits (medical benefits do continue without regard to immigration status).

When a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in Pennsylvania does not agree with the medical treatment being received by an injured worker, there are steps the carrier can take. The most common is “Utilization Review,” which challenges the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment. The carrier can also file a Petition to Review Medical Treatment, if the treatment is believed to be unrelated to the work injury. While the workers’ comp insurance company has the further option of simply ignoring the medical bills, this can lead to an undesirable result for the insurance carrier.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in the matter of CVA, Inc. and State Workers’ Insurance Fund v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Riley), where the insurance carrier took that last option and just ignored the bills it did not like. Thankfully for injured workers in PA, the decision did not go well for the insurance carrier.

This case involved a worker who injured his left knee, and received therapeutic magnetic resonance (TMR) treatment. Bills were sent to the workers’ comp insurance adjuster, who denied the bills, saying either that the documentation did not support the charges, the documentation did not support the billing code, or the treatment was unrelated to the work injury. The injured worker then filed a Petition for Penalties.

Once again, we are reporting on the Pennsylvania Court System addressing the issue of retirement, and voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, in the context of a PA workers’ compensation case.

In Department of Public Welfare/Norristown State Hospital v.Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Roberts), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which had been affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), and ordered that the injured worker’s benefits be suspended because he had retired and voluntarily withdrew from the labor market.

The claimant in this case hurt his neck and back. After his injury, the injured worker took a retirement pension, which, as previously discussed here, may or may not be indicative of retirement. The injured worker also filed for what the Court called a “Social Security Disability Pension,” though I am not sure what that means (Social Security Retirement, akin to pension, is, of course, different than Social Security Disability). In his testimony before the WCJ, the injured worker said he did not feel physically capable of working and has not looked for work. The doctor testifying for the insurance carrier (the Independent Medical Examiner, IME, who typically is somewhat less than independent) felt the injured worker was capable of sedentary duty work.

The calculation of the Average Weekly Wage (AWW) under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act has been explained previously on this blog. Generally, assuming the injured worker had been working for his or her employer for more than a year before the work injury, the AWW is calculated by taking the average earnings of the injured worker for the highest three quarters in the year immediately before the injury.

Occasionally, we have a question regarding whether the injured worker has been “employed” for more than a year before the injury, perhaps due to layoffs. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Courts told us in 2005, in Reifsnyder v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dana Corp), that despite periods of layoff, the term of “employment” continued. In that matter, Mr. Reifsnyder was considered to have zero earnings for the weeks he was laid off, for the purposes of calculating his AWW.

Also in 2005, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania told us, in Colpetzer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Standard Steel), that when an injured worker is disabled by a work injury in the one year period prior to another work injury, the AWW for the subsequent injury should include the AWW from the previous injury for any periods the worker was disabled by the previous injury.

The most damaging petition a workers’ compensation insurance carrier can file against an injured worker in Pennsylvania is a Petition to Terminate. If granted, a Petition to Terminate ends the injured worker’s rights to all PA workers’ compensation benefits for his or her injury, whether wage loss replacement (known as “indemnity”) or medical.

Because the consequences of a Petition to Terminate are so great, the standard for a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to grant such a petition is supposed to be high. Specifically, the workers’ comp insurance company must prove that the work-related injury has fully resolved.

Though a doctor need not utter any magic words to show an injured worker has fully recovered from his or her injury, the opinion must be clear and unequivocal. Merely being released back to unrestricted work, by itself, is not proof the work injury has fully resolved (this does not even entitle the insurance carrier to a Suspension, let alone a Termination).

Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs), under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, have been discussed in this blog before. Basically, the IRE process enables the workers’ comp insurance carrier to switch an injured workers’ disability status to partial if there is a whole body impairment of less than 50% (a ridiculously high standard). [This does not impact the amount of the benefits being received or the access the medical treatment for the work injury].

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania faced the question of whether an IRE determination is valid if it provides for no degree of impairment for a diagnosis the injured worker still has, but is at that time asymptomatic (and, whether the IRE is then later void, because that very same diagnosis is again causing symptoms).

In this decision, Westmoreland Regional Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pickford), the injured worker was left out in the cold by the Court. The Court concluded that the IRE only has to consider the injured worker’s condition at the moment of the IRE. Since the injured worker had no objective evidence of her brachial plexopathy or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS, formerly known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy or RSD) at the time of the IRE, zero impairment for those conditions was correct. The Court found largely irrelevant that within several months of the IRE, the conditions were again revealing objective evidence of impairment.