Articles Posted in Case Law Update

Before recent changes in PA Workers’ Compensation law, an insurance carrier could “accept” a claim using a Notice of Denial (NCD). This left the status of the work injury in doubt, so, in 2011, the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation redesigned the NCD form to no longer allow such an action.

With the previous NCD, we had seen a Claim Petition denied, despite an acknowledged work injury. As attorneys who represent injured workers, we found this result illogical, and just plain wrong.

As if in a confirmation that an illogical result was intended, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the case of Zuchelli v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Indiana University of Pennsylvania), again denying a Claim Petition because disability was not proven (the NCD used to “accept” the claim was done before 2011).

When we settled a workers’ comp case in Pennsylvania (usually done by what is called a “Compromise & Release Agreement”), there was often a question from our client about whether he or she could then file for unemployment compensation benefits. Usually, as part of a workers’ compensation settlement, the employer/insurance carrier wants a resignation as part of the deal. Until recently, we told them the honest answer – maybe. It depended on the identity of the Unemployment Compensation Referee (UCR), the wording of the resignation and the status of the medical clearance (one must be capable of some type of employment to be eligible for unemployment compensation).

When the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently decided Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, however, we were given a pretty specific answer – no, you cannot. Here, the injured worker gave both a resignation and a release (waiving her rights to other causes of action, including unemployment compensation benefits) as part of her workers’ compensation settlement. Following the approval of the settlement, the injured worker filed for unemployment compensation benefits.

Benefits were granted by the UCR, who found the resignation was not “voluntary,” since it was required as part of a workers’ compensation settlement. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed, finding the injured worker not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Upon further appeal, this was affirmed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

When a work injury in Pennsylvania is not obvious, the injured worker must present expert medical testimony to explain how the work duties caused the work injury. This gets even more complicated when the condition at issue is caused by a combination of the work duties and pre-existing pathology, such as in the case of a heart attack (in that situation, the injured worker (known as the “Claimant”) must prove that the work-related cause is a substantial contributing factor to the disability).

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed this issue in Bemis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Perkiomen Grille Corp.). Here, the injured worker, a chef and manager, suffered a heart attack when he was moving kegs of beer and when he was lifting a heavy pot of chili. A Claim Petition was filed and the case was litigated before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ noted that Claimant’s medical expert said the work duties “certainly could have” and “probably” caused the heart attack. The WCJ found this opinion “equivocal” and denied the Claim Petition. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirmed.

Upon further appeal, however, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed this decision. The Court observed that the WCJ erred by taking some statements by the doctor out of context. The mere fact an expert witness says “could have” or “probably” does not render an opinion equivocal. The entire testimony must be reviewed. When this is done, said the Court, it is clear the doctor found the heart attack was related to, and caused by, the work duties. Again, in this situation, the work duties do not have to be the sole cause, only a “substantial contributing factor.” As such, the Court felt the Claim Petition should have been granted, and remanded (sent the case back) to the WCJ, to grant the Claim Petition.

It is well-settled law in PA that an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. However, depending on the condition at issue, the work injury may be seen to end when the worker returns to his or her baseline condition (or, in other words, when the “aggravation” ends and the injured worker is left with the same pre-existing condition).

This concept was explored by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Whaley-Campbell). Here, the injured worker had a long history of allergies and respiratory symptoms for years. The air pollution at work aggravated her conditions and led to chronic conjunctivitis.

The workers’ comp insurance carrier filed a Petition for Termination, saying the work injury had resolved and that the injured worker had returned to baseline. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Petition. Upon further appeal, the workers’ comp insurance company argued the condition is a related to the pre-existing allergies and that a Termination of workers’ comp benefits is warranted.

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).