by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

by

As noted in a previous blog posting, Glenn C. Neiman, a partner at Brilliant & Neiman LLC, joined the prestigious faculty of Lawline.com in 2008. It was recently announced that his next seminar for Lawline.com will be on changing the description of injury in PA workers’ compensation, a topic which has been addressed here recently. The seminar, currently scheduled for late July, will be streamed live through Lawline.com, then made available to attorneys across the State of Pennsylvania, as well as throughout the United States.

by

Utilization Review is the proper course of action when either party in a PA workers’ compensation case questions whether medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. We have discussed this process in a previous blog entry.

Since the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial legislation, intended by its creators to provide the injured worker with the benefit of the doubt, what is considered “reasonable and necessary” does not have to cure a condition. As PA Courts have previously stated, “Treatment may still be reasonable and necessary ‘even when it is designed to manage the claimant’s symptoms rather than to cure or permanently improve the underlying condition.'”

A recent case, Gary v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia School District), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seems to certainly blur this line. In 2001, Ms. Gary injured her neck and back while working. Then, in 2003, a Utilization Review Determination found the treatment of a chiropractor to be reasonable and necessary.

Continue reading

by

The Allentown Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office has been located at 160 Hamilton Street, in Allentown, for several years now. We have just been advised by one of the Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJ) at that office that the hearing location for Allentown will be moving shortly. The plan is for the move to take place in July, 2011. We are told the new location will be closer to the Allentown exit, off of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

As we have discussed in previous blog entries, in PA, a workers’ compensation hearing is typically held in the County in which the injured worker resides. We will provide more information, including the new address, when we are advised by the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

by

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.

by

The issue of “retirement” and “voluntary withdrawal from the labor market” is one we see often in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation. We have had blog entries on how applying for Social Security Retirement benefits can impact the receipt of PA workers’ comp benefits, and how receipt of pension benefits can have such effect. In fact, I have given a seminar on this very topic in the past.

So, when the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania tackles this issue, we certainly take note. Recently, the Court rendered a decision in the matter of City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Leonard). Here, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted a suspension of benefits for a “voluntary withdrawal from the labor market,” but did so at a later date than the workers’ compensation insurance carrier wished, and reinstated benefits thereafter when the injured worker “re-entered the labor market.”

If you are a follower of our blog [and thanks for following us!], you can probably guess that this case turns on the facts. The injured worker here was a police officer who suffered a work injury to his forearm and knee. On April 1, 2006, Claimant received a disability pension, though an Independent Medical Examination (IME) [I chuckle every time I actually write “independent” in that context] found that he was able to work at a light to medium duty level.

Continue reading

by

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:

Continue reading

by

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, PA workers’ comp benefits can be suspended by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) when an injured worker’s loss of earnings is no longer due to the work injury, but is instead due to reasons other than the work injury.

This issue was recently handed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in University of Pennsylvania v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hicks).

Here, the injured worker was a police officer for the University of Pennsylvania. While performing his job, he injured his neck and low back in a motor vehicle accident, and became disabled from his job. Subsequent to his injury, Claimant was convicted of a crime which made him ineligible to be certified as a police officer.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading
Contact Information
Philadelphia & Surrounding Areas
260 W Street Rd
Warminster, PA 18974
Phone: (215) 638-7500
Fax: (267) 803-6298
Trevose
5 Neshaminy Interplex Dr, #205
Trevose, PA 19053
Phone: (215) 638-7500
[Formerly (215) 244-8101]
Fax: (267) 803-6298
Lehigh Valley
609 Hamilton Mall
Allentown, PA 18101
Phone: (610) 740-1002
Fax: (267) 803-6298

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Brilliant & Neiman, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design