On June 30, 2011, Governor Tom Corbett signed House Bill 440, bringing the measure into law. While the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation labelled this a “reform bill,” it appears it will have no real impact on injured workers in PA. Rather, the aim of the new law is to expand the availability of workers’ compensation insurance coverage to small businesses.
We have already mentioned on a past blog entry that injured workers in Pennsylvania can collect PA workers’ compensation benefits and Social Security Disability benefits at the same time. However, a recent opinion from the United States Tax Court, reported on LawyersUSAOnline.com, reminds us that the receipt of the two benefit programs together can have unintended tax consequences.
Our firm only handles Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases; we do not handle tax matters of any kind. Having said that, depending on the spouse’s earnings, if Social Security Disability benefits are being received, workers’ compensation benefits received by an injured worker in PA can be taxable, when ordinarily they would not be taxable. This issue was also addressed recently by the Social Security Administration in a POMS (essentially, a memo). Obviously, this situation changes depending on the circumstances in each case, and the advice of a tax professional should be obtained.
On many occasions over the years, we have addressed the Utilization Review (UR) process in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases. This is the process either party, usually the workers’ comp insurance carrier, uses to obtain a determination as to whether a treatment at issue is “reasonable and necessary” such that the insurance company must pay for the treatment.
What is sometimes lost in this abstract analysis is the impact a UR has on real live people. When a Request for Utilization Review is filed by a workers’ compensation insurer, the insurance carrier is immediately relieved of payment of bills for the treatment at issue, unless and until the treatment at issue is found to be “reasonable and necessary.”
Being in business for profit, or at least to make a living, not all providers are able, or willing, to continue to provide treatment once a UR is filed. One of the most dangerous areas this problem hits home is with medications.
While the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act generally precludes an injured worker in PA from suing his or her employer, the injured worker does have the ability to sue a third party, if that party is responsible for the injury. Since workers’ compensation in PA does not provide any payment for pain and suffering, the ability to file a civil action against a third party is a valuable option. Answers to this, and other questions regarding the PA workers’ comp system, can be found on the Brilliant & Neiman LLC website.
As can be seen from a recent article in the Legal Intelligencer, verdicts in cases involving work injuries can be significant. This again demonstrates the importance of having an experienced PA workers’ comp attorney, who knows what to be looking for in such a case.
Previously, we posted a blog entry on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision in Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap). This was the decision where the Commonwealth Court was unmoved when the injured worker applied for every job in a Labor Market Survey and found none available to him. The Court said the workers’ compensation insurance carrier can still obtain a Modification or Suspension of workers’ comp benefits in this situation.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted appeal in this matter on April 27, 2011. We will certainly keep our readers informed when the Supreme Court of PA reaches a decision.
Back in October, we blogged about the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), which addressed what caused a presumption that an injured worker “retired,” entitling the workers’ comp insurance carrier to a suspension of workers’ compensation benefits.
The decision of the Commonwealth Court arguably made a murky area of the law even more confusing, but it also attempted to inject some compassion and logic into an aspect of law short on both.
For better or worse, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has accepted an appeal in this matter. Specifically, the issue for the Court to determine is:
Readers of this blog, from previous blog entries, know our frustration with the developing practice of workers’ comp insurance carriers “accepting” medical-only claims by issuing a Notice of Denial (NCD).
Aside from the logical problem, there are procedural issues this creates for attorneys representing injured workers in PA. For example, this practice lets the workers’ comp insurance carrier deny the wage aspect of a claim and avoid unreasonable contest fees, and would often wreak havoc with an injured worker’s attempt to obtain medical treatment for the work injury. There is also concern that the NCD would not stop the statute of limitations, meaning a claim could be barred if the injured worker did not know to file a Claim Petition within three years of the injury.
The PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation recognized the problem years ago, and created a medical-only Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). This document would properly preserve the statute of limitations, and let everybody know the true status of the claim. The Courts in Pennsylvania, however, as noted in our previous blog entries above, continued to allow workers’ comp insurance carriers to “accept” claims by using an NCD, making the medical-only NCP useless.
Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, to be eligible for PA workers’ comp benefits, the disabled person must be an “employee.” Often, this is obvious and not even in question. There are times, however, when a case turns on whether, in fact, the injured person was truly an “employee.” We most often see this situation when the issue is whether the injured worker was an “employee” or an “independent contractor.”
The analysis, to determine whether someone was an “employee” or an “independent contractor,” depends on the facts in each case. It frequently becomes a very complicated issue, requiring multiple depositions and extensive litigation.
At least some of this situation will be easier to determine, now that the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Act 72 of 2010, on October 13, 2010 (This is listed as House Bill 400). The law will take effect 2/11/11. While this law applies only to the construction industry, we expect that to be read broadly, to include roofing, plumbing and other related areas.
In Pennsylvania workers’ comp, as in workers’ compensation systems throughout the U.S., the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is being used to assess disability. In other words, an injured worker’s condition and ability to work is being determined by referencing a book, distancing any subjectivity at all. The Guides are now in the Sixth Edition (some States use a specific edition of the Guides, while others, like PA, use the most recent edition).
As discussed in a previous blog entry, PA has a ridiculously high standard to maintain total disability. In Pennsylvania, an injured worker can be deemed only “partially disabled” if they do not reach 50% “whole body impairment.” For point of comparison, as an example, a “very severe,” “approaching total functional loss,” of the cervical spine can reach a maximum whole body impairment of 30%. For the lumbar spine, the whole body impairment can be as high as 33%. Obviously, a devastating injury to the neck or low back, by these figures, will fall short of 50%. It is completely unrealistic, and just plain mean spirited, however, to suggest that an injured worker with this degree of impairment is capable of employment.
Fortunately, the debate is living on, at least on the Federal level. On November 17, 2010, testimony was given by Emily A. Spieler, J.D., Dean and Edwin W. Hadley Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, Massachusetts, before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and Labor in the
Though, generally speaking, Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation system is based purely on wage loss, there are exceptions to the rule. With most work-related injuries in PA, workers’ comp is paid only if the injured worker is disabled from his or her job by the work injury.
One large exception is the category of injuries called “specific loss.” This encompasses when an injured worker permanently loses the use of certain body parts or senses. In this event, benefits are paid under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, whether or not there is any disability resulting from the injury. This covers fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms and legs, in addition to the senses of sight and hearing.
Loss of hearing has had many changes in PA workers’ compensation law over the years. In fact, the entire way hearing loss is compensated under PA workers’ comp was changed with Act 1, passed in 1995. For all hearing loss since then, the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid varies according to the percentage of binaural (both ears) hearing impairment. To receive any workers’ comp benefits, there must be at least a 10% hearing impairment; while, on the other hand, an impairment over 75% is deemed to be a complete loss of hearing.
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog