Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Blog

As we discussed in a previous blog entry, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted review of the Cinram Manufacturing v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hill) case. This case dealt with how one can change or amend a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a decision, affirming the decision of the Commonwealth Court of PA.

The Supreme Court decided that there are two types of changes one can make to a NCP: The change is either a “corrective amendment” (meaning the diagnosis or injury was one present when the work injury took place) or it is a “subsequently-arising” or “consequential” condition (something which happened after the date of injury, such as depression from chronic pain, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)/Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), fibromyalgia, overuse syndrome, just for examples).

A Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can order a change to the NCP in the “corrective amendment” situation, regardless of what type of litigation is pending. However, if the situation is one involving a subsequent or consequential condition, then the claimant must file a Petition to Review. This distinction drawn by the PA Supreme Court represents a change from what was believed to be existing law (Specifically, the cases of Jeanes Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hess) and Commercial Credit Claims v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Lancaster), both previously decided by the Supreme Court of PA).

Ordinarily, to suspend (or even modify) workers’ compensation benefits to an injured worker in PA, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier must show a change of medical condition and prove work is available within the injured worker’s physical capabilities [Benefits can be suspended for other reasons, but this is the most common].

There are exceptions to this rule, and one of those exceptions was the issue involved in Braz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), decided recently by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Claimant decided to move to Portugal after his injury. Upon learning of this fact, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier filed a Petition to Suspend Compensation Benefits, since Claimant had “voluntarily removed himself from the labor market.” Because the workers’ comp insurance company presented no medical evidence, showing a change in medical condition, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Petition. On appeal, the WCAB reversed the WCJ, and granted the Petition.

To obtain workers’ compensation benefits in PA, the worker must be injured while in the scope and course of his or her employment. Fortunately, PA law does not require that a worker be chained to his or her desk, or work area, the entire day. Pennsylvania law recognizes that “small temporary departures” from work do not remove an employee from being in the scope and course of his or her employment. The degree of latitude given also varies depending on whether one is a “stationary” as opposed to a “traveling” employee.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Savani), finding a stationary employee not in the scope and course of her employment when she fell and suffered a fractured arm while off the employer’s property on a paid break. The Court found that being off the employer’s property for personal reasons, even though on a paid break, was not “a small temporary departure from work” or an “inconsequential or innocent departure from work.”

These types of cases vary greatly, depending on the facts in each situation. This is why it is important to have your case reviewed by an experienced PA workers’ comp attorney.

**Update – Decision of the Commonwealth Court of PA REVERSED by Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on July 20, 2011 – See blog entry of August 2, 2011**

When a worker gets hurt at work in PA, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act requires that the employer be notified of the injury with 120 days. If the injury is one of repetitive, or cumulative, nature, such as carpal tunnel syndrome or hearing loss, the 120-day period does not begin until the date the condition, and its relation to work, is known (called “the discovery rule”). This notice does not need to contain the exact diagnosis of the work injury, but merely “a reasonably precise description of the injury.”

In Gentex Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morack), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on June 4, 2009, the Court addressed what “sufficient” notice of an injury must contain.

In PA, when a workers’ compensation insurance carrier wants to challenge whether medical treatment is reasonable or necessary, the insurance carrier can request Utilization Review (UR). In such a case, the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation assigns the UR Request to a Utilization Review Organization (URO). The URO then obtains records from the provider under review, and a personal statement from the injured worker if he or she wishes, and a Utilization Review Determination is issued. This Determination can then be appealed by either party by filing a Petition to Review Utilization Review Determination.

However, if the healthcare provider under review fails to submit records, the regulations to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act require the URO simply find treatment unreasonable and/or unnecessary, because records were not submitted. In this situation, no report is prepared by the URO, and no findings on the merits are made. Importantly, this type of Determination cannot be appealed under the County of Allegheny v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board case, decided by Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in 2005.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has made things even worse for injured workers, by extending County of Allegheny. The case of Sexton v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) was decided by the Court on May 22, 2009. In Sexton, the provider submitted records to the URO, but forgot to submit a verification with the records. The URO returned the records to the provider, so the provider could resubmit the records with the required verification. Unfortunately, the provider never resubmitted the records or the verification.

When a work injury is denied by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier in PA, the injured worker must file a Claim Petition with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. The Claim Petition is then litigated before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). To win a Claim Petition, usually the injured worker needs the WCJ to find both the injured worker, and his or her doctor, credible.

The testimony of the medical expert must be “unequivocal,” that the injured worker suffered a work-related injury, and has been disabled from work as a result of this injury. “Unequivocal” does not require 100% certainty (since nothing in life is 100% certain), but simply requires the doctor to believe that is the case.

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Moyer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), addressed this issue. The WCJ in this case found Claimant and his doctor credible and granted the Claim Petition. However, the WCAB reversed the WCJ, finding the testimony of Claimant’s doctor to be equivocal.

Typically, under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, the benefits of an injured worker are reduced based on any earnings the injured worker has after his or her injury. Specifically, the injured worker receives two-thirds of the difference between the pre-injury earnings and the post-injury earnings (up to a statutory maximum).

In a somewhat troubling decision issued by the Commonwealth Court of PA, Alessandro v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, an injured workers’ benefits were ordered to be suspended, despite the workers’ comp insurance carrier having no evidence that post-injury earnings equaled pre-injury earnings. The Court, noting that the Workers’ Compensation Judge found the injured worker not credible, believed the burden to show earnings (and subsequent wage loss) rests with the injured worker, not the workers’ comp insurance carrier.

As an attorney who represents injured workers in Pennsylvania, I find this decision problematic. Mr. Alessandro testified that he worked some, but had a large wage loss. Since it appears he was paid in cash (meaning there are no written wage records), and Mr. Alessandro was found not credible, as a practical matter, it seems almost impossible for Mr. Alessandro to prove he has a wage loss. How can one prove an absence of earnings?