Articles Posted in Case Law Update

Generally speaking, employees in Pennsylvania are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits when the employee is injured commuting to work (known as the “Coming and Going” rule).

There are four notable exceptions to this rule. They are that the injured worker: (1) has an employment agreement which includes commuting to and from work; (2) has no fixed place of employment; (3) is hurt while on a “special assignment” for employer; or, (4) is furthering the business of the employer.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Peterson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), decided in 1991, has already told us that an employee of a temporary agency has no fixed place of employment. In that case, the Supreme Court said, “[a] temporary employee, who is employed by an agency, never has a fixed place of work.” The Supreme Court then concluded, “when [an] agency employee travels to an assigned workplace, the employee is furthering the business of the agency. Therefore, . . . as a matter of law, [Peterson] had no fixed place of work . . . and her injury occurred while she was in furtherance of her employer’s business.”

As discussed in previous blog entries, back in the old days (before the 1996 changes to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act), if a workers’ comp insurance carrier wanted to cut a claimant’s worker’s compensation benefits, the carrier had to refer the person to an actual job lead. If the job lead did not result in employment, workers’ compensation benefits continued.

In 1996, the system was changed to one more like that used for Social Security Disability. Rather than sending the injured worker to an actual job opening, at an actual employer, a vocational specialist, hired by the insurance carrier, gathers theoretical information and compiles an Earning Power Assessment (EPA, also known as “Labor Market Survey,” (LMS)).

The workers’ comp insurance carrier then can take this EPA/LMS to a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), and ask that the injured worker’s compensation benefits be modified, based on the jobs shown to be “available” in the general geographic area in which the injured worker resides.

We have seen in recent decisions rendered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania a trend toward punishing injured workers in PA who take any type of disability or retirement package, almost, seemingly, without regard for the reasons.

In fact, earlier this month we posted a blog entry regarding Duferco Farrell Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Zuhosky), where the Court followed this very trend. So, the decision rendered by the Court recently in Polis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.), was received as a pleasant surprise.

Here, Mr. Polis had injured his knee (and had surgery for the knee). Eventually, Mr. Polis went back to work, at a light duty job. After some period of time, the employer discontinued the light duty work, leaving Mr. Polis without a position within his physical restrictions. As we commonly see in these situations, Mr. Polis investigated what options were available to put food on his family’s table.

As discussed in previous blog entries, for several years now, the Courts in PA have caused decisions by Pennsylvania’s injured workers to have drastic consequences beyond what an injured worker could reasonably expect.

Because of the decision in Pennsylvania State University v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hensal), rendered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in 2008, the simple act of filing for a pension can easily lead to a loss of workers’ comp benefits for an injured worker.

Well, don’t look now, but Commonwealth Court has struck again. Now, an injured worker who testified credibly that he is NOT retired, that he had NOT filed for a retirement pension from his employer (even though one was available), that he would go back to work if a job was available within his physical restrictions and that he filed for Social Security Retirement benefits only after the workers’ comp insurance carrier refused to reinstate his benefits, has been found by the Court to have voluntarily removed himself from the labor market, ending his entitlement to PA workers’ compensation indemnity (wage loss) benefits.

This being a free Country, a workers’ compensation insurance company in PA cannot “force” an injured worker to get any medical treatment. However, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act permits the suspension of workers’ comp benefits if an injured worker refuses “reasonable” medical treatment (Known as a “Forfeiture” Petition). Often in those cases, the issue is whether the treatment at issue (anything from carpal tunnel release, to lumbar fusion, to total knee replacement, to epidural steroid injections) is actually “reasonable” in any particular case.

An interesting aspect of this issue was recently examined by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Bereznicki v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Eat ‘N Park Hospitality Group). In that case, the question was whether the proposed treatment had to actually be intended to return the injured worker to gainful employment. In a decision surprising to many, the Court held that the treatment did NOT have to be designed to return the injured worker to gainful employment to lead to a suspension of benefits.

The concept of a “Forfeiture Petition” makes sense; it is designed to keep an injured worker from refusing treatment which would put the injured worker back on the job (in reality, however, I doubt many folks would truly refuse treatment that would make them better, but the insurance industry seems to disagree with me). But, to me, that is the point – the fact the injured worker could return to work.

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an insurance carrier cannot just stop, or even change, payments of workers’ comp benefits. Any change made by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier in PA, without permission of the injured worker, or a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), may be met with an assessment of penalties. This leads us into an examination of how an insurance carrier can try to reduce such benefits.

When a workers’ comp insurance carrier receives evidence that the medical condition of an injured worker has changed, the carrier must file a Notice of Ability to Return to Work. The law tells us that this document must be filed before the workers’ compensation carrier can file a Petition to Modify or Suspend (workers’ comp benefits), based on some wage-earning capacity.

In the case of an injured worker actually going back to work, the insurance carrier has a period of time to file a Notification of Modification or Suspension. This document sets forth the allegations regarding the wages now being earned by the injured worker. If this document is not challenged in court by the injured worker, the effect is the same as if the injured worker agreed to the terms recited within the document (as if the injured worker had agreed to those terms in a “Supplemental Agreement.”). If the workers’ compensation insurance carrier does not file the Notification of Modification or Suspension in a timely fashion, then the insurance carrier must file a Modification, or Suspension, Petition and litigate the matter before a WCJ.

Typically, in Pennsylvania, a workers’ compensation claim has two important time constraints – a period within which the injured worker must provide notice of the work injury to his or her employer (within 120 days), and a period within which a Claim Petition must be filed with the Bureau of Workers Compensation (within three years). Though this is the rule, there are, of course, exceptions.

In Lancaster General Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weber-Brown), the Commonwealth Court of PA was faced with a situation where the eye of an injured worker was exposed to herpes simplex virus around 1980. The injured worker gave notice to her employer at that time, but the claim was never formally accepted. In 1985, the injured worker left that job. Through the years, the eye had occasional episodes of infection.

In 2007, the treatments for an infection failed to work, and the injured worker underwent a cornea transplant. At that point, the injured worker was legally blind in that eye, and there was a loss of use of the eye under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (called a “Specific Loss”).

When a violation of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act takes place, the proper avenue of relief is to file a Petition for Penalties. This Petition allows a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to assess a penalty of up to 50% of the benefits at issue. Typically, this is filed by an injured worker against the workers’ comp insurance carrier. Common violations include a delayed payment of wage loss benefits, or a refusal to pay for medical treatment related to the work injury.

Until recently, there was no clear answer as to whether a Petition for Penalties could be filed BY a workers’ compensation insurance carrier AGAINST an injured worker. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has now answered this question in Yespelkis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pulmonology Associates Inc.). The answer is simply, yes, a Penalty Petition can be filed against a claimant in a workers’ comp case.

However, importantly, while a WCJ can assess a penalty against a workers’ compensation insurance carrier of up to 50% of the benefits at issue, the WCJ is limited to assessing a penalty of a forfeiture of interest against an injured worker. This, the Court said, is consistent with the language of the PA Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act allows a workers’ comp insurance carrier to obtain an “Independent Medical Examination” (IME) [Which, of course, is usually anything but “Independent”] at “reasonable” intervals. If an injured worker refuses to attend an ordered IME, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can suspend the injured worker’s benefits under Section 314(a). This was usually interpreted to mean “indemnity” or wage loss benefits, as opposed to medical benefits. Whether medical benefits could be suspended was an open question.

In Giant Eagle v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Givner), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently, this issue was addressed. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier asked the WCJ to suspend compensation benefits of an injured worker who refused to attend a court-ordered IME. The WCJ issued a decision, granting the request of the insurance carrier, that “compensation benefits” be suspended until the injured worker attends the IME. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) agreed and affirmed the decision.

On appeal, the workers’ comp insurance carrier asked that medical benefits be suspended along with the indemnity benefits. The insurance carrier argued that the injured worker should be deprived of all compensation for failing to attend the ordered IME. This position was rejected by the Court, which held that medical benefits are separate from indemnity benefits, and are not included in the term “compensation.” The Court found that, in this case, medical benefits are not suspended because the decision of the WCJ cited only “compensation.”

Ordinarily, when an employee is commuting to, or from, work in Pennsylvania, he or she is not in the course of employment. This is known in the PA workers’ comp community as “The Going and Coming Rule.” Thus, if the employee is injured while commuting, usually the injured worker is not entitled to PA workers’ compensation benefits. Like every rule, however, there are exceptions.

Recently, in Leisure Line v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Walker), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed some of these exceptions. While working as a bus driver for Leisure Line, Mr. Walker commuted from his Delaware home to the bus depot in Coatesville, PA. From the depot, Mr. Walker would drive the bus to and from Atlantic City, NJ. On his way from his home to Coatesville one day, Mr. Walker was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

In asserting that his commute was an exception to the usual rule, and that he was eligible for benefits under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, Claimant had two main assertions – that he was paid for his travel to Coatesville; and, that his willingness to accept the “Coatesville Run,” an unpopular job assignment, was a “special circumstance” which “furthered his employer’s business.”