Case Law Update

November 3, 2008

PA Workers’ Compensation – Where “Yes” Can Mean “No”

Though the case of Armstrong v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board was decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania over a year ago, on August 27, 2007, this decision continues to both amaze and irritate those of us who limit our practice to representing the injured worker in PA workers’ comp cases.

Under Section 406.1 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, the workers’ comp insurance carrier has 21 days to accept or deny a claim. Typically, and logically, acceptance of a claim is done by issuing a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) [or an Agreement for Compensation], and denial of a claim is done by issuing a Notice of Denial (NCD). Since this seems to make perfect sense, naturally, this is not necessarily how things work.

On a Notice of Denial, there are six boxes, or “bases of denial.” Essentially, the workers’ comp insurance company checks one or more of those boxes, indicating the reason or reasons for the denial. Box number four on an NCD states, “Although an injury took place, the employee is not disabled as a result of this injury within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.” This is rather unnecessary, since there is also a “medical only” NCP, to be issued when the workers’ comp insurance carrier feels there is no disability from the work injury.

October 23, 2008

Notice of a Work Injury in PA May be Given Even After 120 Days

by Glenn Neiman

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker must give notice of his or her injury within 120 days of the injury. If this notice is not given within 120 days, a claim petition for workers’ comp benefits is barred.

When an injury is not known to be related to work, this time period may be extended. This is known as a “discovery rule.” In that case, notice must be given within 120 days of when the injured worker knows he or she has suffered a work injury.

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of PA, The Bullen Companies v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hausmann), explored this issue. In this case, the injured worker was employed at a chemical plant for 17 years. The worker started getting treatment for kidney ailments in 2002, but did not notify his employer of a work injury until 2004, which the employer said was more than 120 days after the “injury” was suffered.

October 15, 2008

Another Case Shows Unreasonable Contest Attorney Fees in PA a Rare Occurrence

by Glenn Neiman

As we explained in a recent blog entry, under the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act, Section 440(a) to be exact, reasonable attorney fees are to be paid by the PA workers’ compensation insurance carrier, unless the workers’ comp insurance carrier proves it had a reasonable basis to contest the claim. By design, this was to be the rule; the exception would be when attorney fees were charged to the injured worker.

Unfortunately, this is not how things work in practice. In Costa v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Carlisle Corp.), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on October 14, 2008, the workers’ comp insurance carrier was found to have a reasonable basis to contest a claim when their own doctor agreed a work injury had taken place.

How could the Court accomplish such a feat, you ask? Well, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s doctor felt the injured worker had suffered a neck strain, while the injured worker’s doctor felt he had herniated a disc in the cervical spine (this would help explain why the injured worker had neck surgery after the work injury). Thus, the Court felt that because the parties’ medical experts disagreed what diagnoses were related to the work injury, the workers’ comp insurance carrier had a reasonable basis to contest the injury.

September 29, 2008

Unreasonable Contest Attorney Fees in PA Workers’ Comp

by Glenn Neiman

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, a workers’ comp insurance carrier has 21 days to accept or deny a claim. During that period, the workers’ comp insurance carrier is to investigate the claim. This both fair and clear.

The award of attorney fees under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act is supposed to be the rule. Only when the workers’ comp insurance carrier demonstrates that the they had a reasonable basis to deny the claim is an award of fees to be denied. This is how the law sets forth the process. Again, this seems both fair and clear.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unreasonable contest attorney fees are rarely ordered against the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. Even though the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, and the cases from PA Courts, show the workers’ comp insurance carrier must have a basis to deny a claim at the time the decision is made to deny the claim, Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) rarely apply the law this way.

September 5, 2008

Pennsylvania Employer Barred From Using Alleged Failed Drug Test in Subsequent Workers’ Comp Case

by Glenn Neiman

In Erisco Industries, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Luvine), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on September 3, 2008, an employer unsuccessfully tried to defend a Claim Petition by saying Claimant failed a drug test and that the drug use led to the work injury. Under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, intoxication of the injured worker can be an “affirmative defense” by the workers’ compensation insurance company. This means that the burden is on the workers’ comp insurance carrier to prove not only that the injured worker was intoxicated (by drug or alcohol), but that the intoxication caused the injury.

When Mr. Luvine filed his Claim Petition, the workers’ compensation insurance company tried to submit the results of a drug test that they alleged was positive for an illegal substance. Part of the evidence required by the workers’ comp insurance company is to show “chain of custody” regarding the drug test; basically, they must show the sample was properly collected, authenticated and controlled throughout the testing process. This is primarily applicable when the laboratory which tests the sample is not the party who obtained the sample. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) rejected the drug test results because the workers’ compensation insurance carrier failed to prove chain of custody, and the WCJ granted the Claim Petition.

Eventually, Mr. Luvine was released back to work, but his employer refused to offer him a job, since he had (in their eyes) failed the drug test. The workers’ comp insurance carrier filed a Petition to Suspend the workers’ compensation benefits, because they said the reason the injured worker was having wage loss now was that he failed a drug test (and no longer was due to the work injury).

September 3, 2008

Reinstating in PA Workers’ Comp After Benefits are Terminated

by Glenn Neiman

One of the most difficult burdens an injured worker in Pennsylvania faces is when he or she is trying to reinstate PA workers’ compensation benefits after a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) has terminated such benefits. Since the granting of a Termination Petition means that the WCJ has found the claimant fully recovered from the work injury, there is a logical problem to later show the same injured has “recurred.”

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, National Fiberstock Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Grahl), shed some light on the actual burden a claimant faces in this situation. In short, the claimant must prove that, after the date the WCJ found there was a full recovery, there was a change (a worsening) of that physical condition. A previous workers’ comp decision by the Court noted that this change must be proven “by precise and credible evidence of a more definite and specific nature than that upon which initial compensation was based.”

Obviously, this is a very difficult burden for the injured worker to reach. But, as the Grahl decision shows, the burden is hardly impossible. In the Grahl case, the injured worker won her case by proving her carpal tunnel syndrome had recurred, using the doctor’s physical examination (which showed atrophy, or shrinking of the muscle) and electrodiagnostic testing (EMG test). It is this type of objective proof of the change in her condition which won the case.

August 25, 2008

Injured Worker in PA Can Be a “Traveling Employee” Even if Worker Has Multiple Employers

by Glenn Neiman

Under the PA Workers’ Comp Act, generally speaking, a worker is not eligible for Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits when he or she is commuting to work. Under the law, the worker is not “in the scope of employment” at that time. One exception to this rule is for “traveling employees,” who are usually in the scope and course of their employment while moving from place to place. Obviously, it is advantageous for an injured worker who is hurt commuting to work to be found to be a “traveling employee.”

In a recent case, Jamison v. WCAB (Gallagher Home Health), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a home health nurse, who was hurt commuting to her assignment, was a traveling employee, despite the fact she worked for three different employers (sometimes all on the same day). The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) had found that Claimant was not a traveling employee, because she could be working for any of her three employers on any given day. As such, the WCJ denied the Claim Petition.

In reversing the WCJ, the Court found that claimant was a traveling employee with regard to her home health nurse job (the issue of multiple employers was essentially irrelevant). Once found to be a traveling employee, claimant was entitled to a presumption that she was working for her employer at the time she was driving from her home to the patient’s house. To prevail and defeat the claim, the workers’ compensation insurance company would have to prove the claimant abandoned her duties for the employer (for instance, by proving that claimant was actually on her way to work at one of her other jobs). Since the workers’ comp insurance carrier failed to prove this, the WCJ erred in denying workers’ compensation benefits to claimant.

August 20, 2008

IRE in PA Workers’ Comp Cannot be Done Until Injured Worker Reaches MMI

by Glenn Neiman

Under the most recent amendments to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, passed in 1996, once an injured worker in PA has received total disability benefits for 104 weeks, the workers’ comp insurance company can obtain an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). If the work-related injury results in a whole body impairment rating of less than 50% (as almost all injuries do – this is an impossibly high standard), the PA Workers’ Compensation Act says the injured worker is changed from “total” disability status to “partial” disability status.

While this change from total to partial disability status does not change the amount of workers’ compensation benefits the injured worker receives, it does start the clock running regarding how long the benefits can be received. Partial disability benefits in PA are payable for a maximum of 500 weeks.

I go through this background, so that you understand the significance of a recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Combine v. WCAB (National Fuel Gas Dist. Co.). In this case, the Court held that a PA workers’ compensation insurance company cannot get an impairment rating until the IRE doctor first determines that a claimant has reached “maximal medical improvement” (MMI). Any obstacle in the path of the insurance carrier is certainly a benefit to claimants.

August 8, 2008

Expert Medical Evidence Necessary to Prove Disability in PA Workers’ Comp

by Glenn Neiman

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Albert Einstein Healthcare v. W.C.A.B. (Stanford), held that an injured worker seeking Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits must present expert medical evidence to prove disability. The testimony of the injured worker alone, unless the injury and the disability are obviously connected, will not be enough.

In this case, the claimant testified that she stopped working, due to the work injury, on October 21, 2002. The medical expert who testified in the workers’ comp case on her behalf did not see her until December 17, 2003. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the testimony of claimant and her doctor both credible, but found that workers’ compensation benefits could not be awarded until December 17, 2003, as there was no competent medical evidence of her disability until that date (when she was seen by the doctor).

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) modified that portion of the decision of the WCJ and ordered that PA workers’ comp benefits should start as of October 21, 2002, based on the credible testimony of the claimant.

August 7, 2008

PA Court Addresses Notice Requirement for Work-Related Hearing Loss

by Glenn Neiman

Under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker must give his or her employer notice of the injury within 120 days of the injury. If notice is not given within 120 days of the work injury, a workers’ comp claim for the injury will be barred. This issue becomes somewhat more complicated when the injury is one which occurs over a period of years, such as a noise-induced hearing loss.

A recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Crompton Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (King), found that the requirement of giving notice is triggered only when an injured worker is told by a doctor that he or she has suffered a loss of hearing as a result of exposure to noise at work. Until an injured worker is advised of this, there is no requirement that notice be given. The fact the injured employee may suspect, or even believe, that he has a work-related hearing loss is not enough to trigger the start of the 120 day notice period.