Workers Compensation Litigation

May 22, 2017

Findings of Fact, and Determinations of Credibility, Made by PA Workers’ Compensation Judge Difficult to Change on Appeal

As attorneys representing the injured worker in Pennsylvania, there is a call we get far too often. It starts with the injured worker telling us that they lost their case before the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and need assistance in litigating an appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). Unfortunately, in the vast majority of these cases, we are simply unable to offer help to the injured worker.

The role of the WCJ in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation is something we have discussed on this blog in the past. Essentially, the WCJ is the ultimate Finder of Fact. When a credibility determination has to be made, it is the province of the WCJ to do so. As long as there is support in the evidentiary record, and the WCJ explains his or her reasoning, these credibility determinations cannot be reversed or changed on appeal. Even if the appellate body, whether the WCAB, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, or even the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, admits it would have concluded otherwise, it still cannot change the Findings of Fact or credibility determinations rendered by the WCJ.

So, you may be wondering, if an appellate court cannot change the Findings of Fact or determinations of credibility of a WCJ, what is required then on appeal? Basically, a successful appeal requires that it be shown the WCJ made an error of law. An appellant would have to show that there is no substantial basis to support the ultimate Conclusion of Law made by the WCJ. In other words, accepting the facts as found by the WCJ, the appellant should still have won. For better or worse (depending if you win before the WCJ), it is pretty rare to find a true “error of law” made by the WCJ. This is why we can rarely help an injured worker with an appeal, when the injured worker does not contact us until he or she loses in front of the WCJ.

May 2, 2017

Utilization Review in PA Workers’ Compensation Will Have to be Filed Electronically

by Glenn Neiman

We have discussed the role of Utilization Review (UR) both on our website and on our blog. This helps demonstrate how important this concept is in the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system. As the Bureau’s Workers’ Compensation Automation and Integration System (WCAIS) takes an increasingly bigger role in the practice of workers’ comp in PA, there are changes which must be made. One of those deals with the UR process.

UR is, of course, the process to determine whether a given course of medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. If treatment is found to not be reasonable and necessary by the Utilization Review Organization (URO), the workers’ comp insurance carrier is not liable for the payment of that treatment (nor, by the law, is the patient). A determination by a URO can be appealed to a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ).

Typically, a UR is initiated by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, to try and avoid paying for a specified medical treatment. Frequent targets in these URs are physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and medications. However, there are often situations where we file a UR, prospectively (for some future treatment), so our client can more easily get a specific treatment, whether it be a diagnostic study (such as an MRI or EMG), surgical procedure, or unusual medication.

February 19, 2015

Pennsylvania has New Rules for Practice and Procedure in Workers’ Compensation Matters

by Glenn Neiman

Recently, we attended a seminar to be briefed on changes in the rules, formally known as the Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure before Workers’ Compensation Judges or the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (each has a separate set of rules). Since our practice is limited to representing injured workers in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases, it is critical that we be aware of all aspects of the system.

Perhaps it would be wise first to understand where the Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure fit into the system. As we have mentioned before in this blog, workers’ compensation laws vary widely from State to State. Here, the law starts with the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, which was created back in 1915 and amended many times since. This law, and its amendments, were written and enacted by the PA legislature. The law is then interpreted by the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. The process by which we litigate these cases, through the Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) and Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), are dictated by these Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure.

Included in the changes to the Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure before Workers’ Compensation Judges are how cases are litigated against the Uninsured Employers’ Guaranty Fund (UEGF), the fund that is available when an employer fails to carry PA workers’ comp insurance. There were also changes or amendments to what must be contained within Stipulations of Fact, to the timing of the serving of subpoenas, to the availability of a motion like a Motion for Summary Judgment (as in civil law), and changes to initial hearing procedures and pleadings.

January 23, 2014

Attending Seminar on WCAIS to Better Handle Workers’ Comp Cases in PA

by Glenn Neiman

On Friday, January 24, 2014, our offices will be closed for part of the day so our attorneys, and our staff, can attend a seminar regarding the usage of the new computer system recently installed for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Called the WCAIS system, this program went live back in September.

Though we were involved in the early testing of the WCAIS system, each day has brought changes to the new program. To best handle our cases with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, we felt it important that we, and our staff, attend a seminar held to review the current status of WCAIS, and how best to use the system. The seminar is scheduled to have Hon. Elizabeth A. Crum, Director, Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication in Harrisburg, Hon. Susan B. Caravaggio, Central District Judge Manager for the Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication, and three of the lead programmers who worked on, and refined, the system.

While we apologize for any inconvenience caused by us closing the firm, we believe our attendance at this seminar this will better enable us to represent injured workers throughout Southeastern and Central Pennsylvania.

July 26, 2013

Brilliant & Neiman LLC Working with PA Bureau of Workers’ Comp on WCAIS

by Glenn Neiman

As a leading workers’ compensation firm in Pennsylvania, Brilliant & Neiman LLC has worked with the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation on issues, such as the mediation process, in the past. The Bureau is now getting ready to institute the final part of its overhaul, transitioning into the online Workers’ Compensation Automation and Integration System (WCAIS). Initially, last September, the Bureau started the transition to WCAIS, by putting the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) onto the system. This next, and final, step will be to bring the rest of the Bureau, and the entire adjudication process, into WCAIS.

It was no surprise, then, that the attorneys at Brilliant & Neiman LLC were again invited by the Bureau to be among a select group of attorneys and legal professionals from across the State of Pennsylvania to assist the Bureau with the final stages of this development. This partnership is beneficial to the Bureau, by having the attorneys work on the new system under the watch of the Bureau – to further tweak the process and refine its efficiency, as well as to the attorneys involved, by having an early exposure to the new system and gaining valuable experience.

The WCAIS system will streamline the workers’ compensation process in PA, centralizing the filing of petitions, the scheduling of hearings and the entire litigation of cases. Currently, the system is scheduled to go live on September 9, 2013. This new process should greatly increase the efficiency of both the Bureau, and the parties involved in litigation. We at Brilliant & Neiman LLC were excited and honored to share our time and experience with the Bureau, to help make the system better for all involved.

November 8, 2012

PA Workers’ Comp – Panel Physician v. DME

by Glenn Neiman

We were recently asked by an injured PA worker, and not for the first time, “Why is my employer making me see another doctor if I am already being treated by the doctor my employer sent me to?” The answer to the question requires that we look at two different parts of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). Essentially, we are looking at the difference between a “panel physician” and an “Independent Medical Examination (IME)” [More realistically termed a “Defense Medical Examination (DME)” since there is often nothing “objective” about it].

Under the Act, an employer may only be responsible for payment to a medical provider on a “panel posting,” for the first 90 days of treatment, provided the panel posting meets the requirements as contained within the Act. Though there is a widely held belief that an employer controls medical treatment for the first 90 days, this is a vast overstatement, and employers frequently have an improper panel (meaning that the injured worker may be able to treat with any provider, and have the employer pay for such treatment, from the start).

A proper panel posting must contain at least six providers, at least three of which are physicians (the remainder could be therapy facilities or other healthcare providers who are not doctors). No more than four of the six on the posting may be from the same “coordinated care organization” (one could simply say “practice”). This posting must be displayed in a prominent location. The employer must have the injured worker sign an acknowledgement, both at the time of hire and as soon as practical after the injury, that the injured worker is aware of the panel posting. All of these requirements can be found in Section 306(f.1)(1)(i) of the Act. Frankly, very few employers actually achieve all of these requirements (yet, sadly, injured workers are unfairly saddled with treatment at a location chosen by their employer because the injured worker is not aware of his or her rights).

October 12, 2012

PA Workers Compensation Judges on the Move Again

by Glenn Neiman

It has certainly been a busy time for Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) in Pennsylvania. We just recently discussed filling the vacancy in the Allentown Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office, and now we have learned of three additional WCJs on the move.

Leaving the bench will be The Honorable Nancy Goodwin, who had been stationed in the Philadelphia Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office, and The Honorable Thomas Hines, from the Malvern (Montgomery County) Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office. We have further learned, all of this unofficially, that The Honorable Kelly Melcher will be moving from the Reading Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office to the Malvern office to replace Judge Hines. We have not heard any information regarding a replacement for Judge Goodwin.

We wish Judge Goodwin and Judge Hines well in their retirements, and we thank them for their years of dedicated service to the PA workers’ comp community. We also congratulate Judge Melcher on the move, and wish her well in Malvern.

September 27, 2012

Workers’ Compensation Judge Named for Allentown Workers’ Comp Hearing Office

by Glenn Neiman

Several months ago, we reported that four PA Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) had stepped down from the bench, while only two new WCJs had been named by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. This left a difficult void in some hearing offices, such as that in Allentown.

We are now pleased to report that a new WCJ has been named to the bench in Allentown. She is The Honorable Cathleen A. Sabatino, who most recently was practicing as a Senior Associate at the law firm of Del Collo & Mazzanti LLP in Paoli, PA. Since graduating from Villanova University School of Law, Ms. Sabatino has been active in the Workers’ Compensation section of the Philadelphia Bar Association where she has served as chair of the section’s annual charity auction. In her community, Ms. Sabatino volunteers as an adult mentor with Spring-Ford Community Theatre’s Youth Ensemble (She holds a B.A. in Theatre from DeSales University).

It is with warm thoughts that we greet The Honorable Cathleen A. Sabatino, and we wish her well in her new career as a WCJ in Allentown.

August 13, 2012

PA Workers Comp Medical Treatment Bills and Fee Review

by Glenn Neiman

As attorneys who represent injured workers in PA, we are often told by our clients that their doctor or physical therapist is not being paid by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. Moreover, the client is receiving bills from the provider, maybe even notices from a collection agency. This is a sticky area, since the rules are in place, but not easily enforceable.

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is very specific on this topic. Right in the Act, Section 306 (f.1)(7), it says:

“A provider shall not hold an employe liable for costs related to care or service rendered in connection with a compensable injury under this act. A provider shall not bill or otherwise attempt to recover from the employe the difference between the provider’s charge and the amount paid by the employer or the insurer.”

July 26, 2012

New Threat to Workers’ Compensation in PA

by Glenn Neiman

Through the efforts of concerned citizens, and attorney groups united to support injured people, such as the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, there has been no legislation really harmful to the injured workers in Pennsylvania passed since 1996. Unfortunately, it appears there is now a new threat on the horizon, and we call on every injured person, and anyone who cares about the injured worker in PA, to make their concerns known to their State Representatives and State Senators.

The Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce has a new “wish list” for the reform of the workers’ compensation system in PA. The changes desired by the Chamber primarily impact the medical providers, rather than the injured workers directly. Obviously, however, this will impact the injured worker by narrowing the treatment options open to injured workers in Pennsylvania, and generally add another layer of difficulty to what is already a minefield for those unfamiliar with the process.

One of the primary changes that the PA Chamber of Commerce would have made is to increase the time an injured worker in PA is required to treat with a company “doctor” from 90 days to 180 days. Any injured worker who has experienced substandard medical care in those first 90 days, or the difficulties of having a medical provider more concerned with a return to work than a cure, understands the significance of this expansion. No mention was made by the Chamber of the developing practice we are seeing where the injured worker is stuck with a nurse practitioner for that captive period, effectively denying the injured worker from even being evaluated by a medical doctor.