Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer BlogIt is with a heavy heart, and great sadness, that we relate that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation community has lost a valued member. Workers’ Compensation Judge Mark Peleak passed away while bicycling on July 7, 2013. Judge Peleak presided in the Wilkes-Barre Workers’ Compensation Office, which is in the Central District. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and his many friends and admirers. He will be missed.
Denied PTSD Case Going to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania?
We were appalled when the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently found armed robbery to be a “normal” part of the job as a clerk working for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Accordingly, we are seeking to take our battle to the top.
When a party loses a workers’ compensation case in Pennsylvania, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can be appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). A party then has the right to file an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. That is the end for a party having the automatic right to appeal a workers’ compensation case in PA. Beyond that is at the discretion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the highest Court in the State.
Once a party loses at the level of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, and wants to take the case to the PA Supreme Court, the party must request “allocatur” by filing a Petition for Allowance of Appeal. The High Court then has the discretion whether to accept the appeal (grant allocatur) or not. Very few appeals are accepted by the Supreme Court.
Guns, Violence in PA Liquor Stores Perfectly Normal, Says Court
We have expressed our displeasure for how the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act treats mental/emotional injuries. As long as the cause of the injury is purely mental/emotional, any resulting disability is only compensable if the cause represents an “abnormal working condition.” The standard for this test varies according to the job in question; a police office, firefighter or other first responder would have a greater burden of proof than an accountant, chef or automobile mechanic, simply because their job tends to expose them to more shocking events.
This issue is dear in our hearts, since we have a case we have discussed on our blog previously, highlighting this ridiculous standard. For those who do not recall, we represent a liquor store clerk who was the victim of an armed robbery. Understandably, the clerk was then disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board had the gall to deny the claim, saying that armed robbery at one of their stores was not “abnormal.” (It offends us as taxpayers, and citizens, that the agency openly embraces such incompetence by knowingly exposing their employees to danger, rather than make any effort at a solution).
The case was litigated, with both medical experts agreeing that the clerk had post-traumatic stress disorder, and that he was unable to return to that employment. In defense, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (LCB) showed their training process, which included how to handle an armed robbery, the location and function of panic buttons, and the “open safe” key. All of the training materials, however, stated that the occurrence of armed robbery in a liquor store was “rare,” and that this was an “unlikely event.” Neither the clerk, nor any of the four witnesses presented by the LCB, was ever the victim of an armed robbery. Indeed, the manager of the store at which the clerk worked was not even aware of the procedure following a robbery. The store had panic buttons installed, but did not have any guards.
Acupuncture Shown to be Effective for Relieving Pain
Regular readers to our blog know that, in addition to noting recent court decisions involving workers’ compensation matters in Pennsylvania, we also try to keep injured workers informed about any developments in diagnosing or treating work injuries. Along these lines, one of the frequent topics we blog on is pain, and how it can be relieved. We’ve looked at what methods may be coming in the future, and at other possible contributions to pain.
We have also discussed acupuncture in the past. This treatment method has always been controversial, perhaps even more so in the workers’ compensation setting. Like chiropractic treatment, acupuncture is frequently met by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier with Utilization Review (to challenge whether the treatment is “reasonable and necessary”). According to a recent article published on the website of the International Anesthesia Research Society, there is proof that acupuncture actually can help with certain physical ailments, including post-operative pain, and chronic pain.
This article cited various studies, where acupuncture was tested against a placebo (sort of faked acupuncture). In at least one of these controlled studies, it was definitively shown that “acupuncture is more effective than placebo.” This result led the authors of that study to conclude that, “acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable treatment option.” In fact, at least one study showed that the difference between acupuncture and placebo is similar to the difference between medication and placebo, in relieving pain with arthritic knee conditions.
Law Protecting Firefighters Creating Workers’ Comp Insurance Issues
As we discussed previously, premiums for workers’ compensation insurance in Pennsylvania have been reduced for the second consecutive period. Apparently, all is not well for the insurance carriers in PA however. It appears a change in the law has made several insurance carriers refuse to cover fire departments in Pennsylvania.
In 2011, the PA legislature passed Act 146. As we discussed on our blog, this law created a presumption that cancer in a firefighter was related to his or her employment for the purposes of workers’ compensation benefits (meaning the burden of proof would fall to the employer to prove the cancer was not related to work activities). The period within which a claim can be reported was also significantly extended.
According to a recent article on Firehouse.com, these changes to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act made several insurance carriers drop the workers ‘ compensation coverage for fire departments in PA. Of course, communities or townships can self-insure for workers’ comp, or they, like any employer, can turn to the State Workers’ Insurance Fund (SWIF), a quasi-government insurance carrier which will offer coverage to any employer in PA.
Can Potential Carpal Tunnel Syndrome be Predicted?
In the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system, we frequently see cases involving carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). As many of you know, this condition occurs when the median nerve is entrapped in the wrist. There are many potential causes of CTS, including familial history, certain medical conditions, trauma and certain physical activities. CTS can also occur “idiopathically” (without a known cause). Frequently, we see litigation regarding whether CTS in any given case is related to the work activities.
Are we all at the same risk to develop CTS? According to a recent study published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and referenced in The Wall Street Journal recently, the size and shape of a person’s hand and wrist can show whether that person is predisposed to the development of CTS. Specifically, if a person has a “short and wide hand with square wrist matching to narrow and deep tunnel entrance,” that person has an increased likelihood for developing CTS. Of course, that leads us into an examination of what causes CTS, and whether CTS in any given case can be accepted as a work-related injury.
According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, “Work that involves high force or vibration is particularly hazardous (to developing CTS), as is repetitive hand and wrist work in cold temperatures.” They also note that repetitive use of the hands and wrists can cause repetitive stress disorder, overuse syndrome and chronic upper limb pain syndrome. Similarly, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom relates that CTS can be triggered by activities with “strenuous grip, repetitive wrist flexion and exposure to vibration,” including motions associated with manual labor. This is consistent with the view of the National Safety Council, who noted that “(r)epetitive manual work tasks requiring a forceful grip and use of vibrating tools can damage the median nerve in the arm, contributing to CTS.”
Certified as Specialists in the Practice of Workers’ Compensation Law
One of the most difficult decisions faced by an injured worker in PA is how to decide who to hire as their worker’s compensation attorney. Many sites, or publications, have a list of attorneys they tout. Maybe they are called “Super” attorneys or “Awesome” lawyers, or some other cleaver marketing name. What standards do they use? Are they objective? Is there really merit in being named? Who knows. Now, however, there is an objective, regulated selection process authorized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
As we mentioned before, Pennsylvania has created a Workers’ Compensation Law Certification process. First, an attorney is screened to be certain he or she possesses the requisite experience to sit for the examination (a minimum of five years practicing in workers’ comp is required). Specific cases must be provided, including briefs and written arguments. The attorney must certify that at least half of his or her practice is devoted to PA workers’ comp matters. Only then is the attorney even allowed to sit for the examination test.
This test was given for the first time in March, 2013. The grueling four hour assessment covered every aspect of PA workers’ compensation law, thoroughly testing each applicant’s knowledge of the workers’ comp system. Both multiple choice and essay questions were involved.
Brilliant & Neiman LLC Involved in Mediation Working Group with Bureau
Mediation is a growing area in Pennsylvania workers’ comp. As we have previously discussed, a mediation is when an independent party, in this context usually a Workers’ Compensation Judge [WCJ] (other than the assigned WCJ), meets with the parties in an informal setting in an effort to resolve the differences between the parties. The ultimate goal is to achieve a settlement to the case (usually done by “Compromise & Release Agreement”).
Since we at Brilliant & Neiman LLC work with injured workers every day, having constant contact with the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system, we are well-versed in most aspects of how the system functions from day to day. We are proud that our knowledge and experience will be used by the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, as the Bureau adjusts the system to change with the times.
Since the start of “Mandatory Mediation,” added to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act in the 1996 amendments to the Act, the system has been relatively stagnant. Recently, the Bureau has sought a small working group to evaluate the mediation system and see what, if any, changes could be beneficial to the mediation process.
Failed Drug Test Damaging to PA Injured Worker
The general rule in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation is that if a work injury makes you unable to work, you should be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. One of the exceptions to this rule is when the loss of wages is due to some reason unrelated to the work injury.
Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed this issue in Brewer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (E2 Payroll & Staffing Solutions). The Claimant injured his low back when he was pinned by a forklift. As is their known policy, the employer had the hospital take a drug test of Claimant after the injury. Claimant failed the drug test, and admitted he used cocaine and marijuana a few days before the work injury. Since the employer has a zero-tolerance policy on drug use, Claimant was fired immediately.
Claimant filed a Claim Petition, seeking payment of his lost wages. In the litigation, the doctor secured by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier testified that the incident at work had caused a herniated disc in the lumbar spine, and that this damaged disc was irritating a nerve (a condition called “radiculopathy”), but that Claimant was capable of working at a light duty position. The employer had a representative testify that light duty work would have been available to Claimant, if he had not been terminated for failing the drug test. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted the Claim Petition, but suspended wage loss payments, finding the loss in earnings to be unrelated to the work injury. This was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB).
Retirement in Workers’ Comp Again Addressed in PA
Fresh from the PA Supreme Court decision in City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), comes a decision from the Commonwealth Court, again addressing the interplay between the concept of “retirement” and the continued entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania.
In the matter of Fitchett v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (School District of Philadelphia), the primary issue was actually procedural, rather than whether the “retirement” was proven, or which side had the burden of proof. Though other Petitions were pending, the relevant one was a Petition for Termination, alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injury. Notably, in an “interlocutory” order (a temporary order, not usually subject to appeal), the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted Defendant an offset for both a pension and Social Security Retirement (SSR) benefits being received by the Claimant.
While testifying in defense to the Petition for Termination, Claimant was asked whether she considered herself retired. Claimant had responded, “Well, I’m collecting retirement.” In subsequent testimony, she clarified that if not for her work injuries, she had planned to continue working. When asked directly whether she was retired, however, Claimant responded, simply, “yes.” Again, Claimant later clarified that she meant she had to leave her employer due to her injuries. Claimant testified she had not looked for any work, and forms from her treating doctors, wherein Claimant described her occupation as “retired,” were offered into evidence.