Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, a workers’ comp insurance carrier has 21 days to accept or deny a claim. During that period, the workers’ comp insurance carrier is to investigate the claim. This both fair and clear.

The award of attorney fees under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act is supposed to be the rule. Only when the workers’ comp insurance carrier demonstrates that the they had a reasonable basis to deny the claim is an award of fees to be denied. This is how the law sets forth the process. Again, this seems both fair and clear.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unreasonable contest attorney fees are rarely ordered against the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. Even though the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, and the cases from PA Courts, show the workers’ comp insurance carrier must have a basis to deny a claim at the time the decision is made to deny the claim, Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) rarely apply the law this way.

Claimants receiving, or attempting to receive, workers’ compensation benefits in PA are required to report receipt of various income. There are three what we call “verification forms,” which workers’ compensation insurance companies can send to these claimants. If these forms, which were approved by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, are not completed by the claimants, and returned to the workers’ comp insurance carrier within 30 days, workers’ compensation benefits can be stopped.

On the other hand, I recently received a copy of a “Claim Status Report,” which was sent by the workers’ comp insurance carrier to my client. Some of the questions were similar to those on the forms approved by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, but there were other questions which a claimant would have no obligation to answer.

This is just another instance of why every Claimant should have access to an experienced PA workers’ comp attorney. Any time something is received by a workers’ compensation claimant, there should be a discussion with the attorney. There are so many rights and responsibilities the injured worker should know, that it just makes sense to have someone to watch their back.

While ankle injuries are common in PA workers’ comp cases, we do not hear about total ankle replacements as much as we hear of total knee replacements or total hip replacements. Unfortunately, sometimes a work injury causes such damage to the ankle, or triggers the development of arthritis in the ankle, such that a total ankle replacement is necessary.

A recent article on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ website talked of improvements in total ankle replacements. At this point, in the United States, only four types of implants are available for total ankle replacements. Each of these devices consists of only two components. This means there will not be much mobility in the ankle. Of course, the alternative, of fusing the ankle in one position, offers no movement at all.

Outside the United States, total ankle replacements are being done with a device containing three components, allowing greater mobility. FDA approval is being recommended for such devices to be approved for use in the U.S. The article suggests approval for these devices could come as soon as later this year.

Last Thursday and Friday, I attended the annual Fall Meeting of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section in Hershey, PA. While I hate to be out of the office for the two days, I think it is important to hear, and discuss, things that are happening in the Pennsylvania Courts, as well as with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and its Workers’ Compensation Judges. In addition to reviewing recent Court Cases, we also discussed the status of the law regarding “retirement” (voluntary withdrawal from the labor market), “Labor Market Surveys” (also known as “Earning Power Assessments”), and the new 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (which is going to be used to for Impairment Rating Evaluations (IRE)). Going to seminars such as this is what allows us to know the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act inside and out, ultimately, to the benefit of our clients. And, since the seminar is in Hershey, the fact chocolate bars are placed on every table never hurts either!

As if an injured worker needed another reason to think of surgery as only a last resort, a recent article in Annals of Surgery journal noted that there is a discrepancy in the count of surgical instruments (including sponges) in nearly 13% of surgical procedures. This, of course, does not mean an instrument, or a sponge, is left in a surgical patient in 13% of procedures (that percentage is closer to 0.02%, or one in 5,000). Still, this seems like a staggeringly high percentage to have a miscount.

An article in Amednews.com suggests some solutions to reducing this figure. One is putting bar codes on sponges, which would then be scanned in and out. The count would then be automatic. The article suggests this would add only about $9.00 per surgical case. Another option is placing tiny radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags in the sponges. A wand could then be used to locate missing sponges, either inside a patient, or around the operating room. This would cost an additional $25.00 to $45.00 per surgical procedure.

While certainly no injured worker wants to rush into surgery, sometimes a work injury requires surgical intervention, whether it is a back surgery, a total knee replacement, or any other procedure. The hope is that these new technologies can make surgery safer, and less risky, for every injured worker.

Since we here at Brilliant & Neiman LLC only started publishing our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Blog in April, 2008, we were shocked and honored when we were selected by LexisNexis as one of the top 25 blogs for workers’ compensation (across the U.S.) for 2008.

“These blogsites contain some of the best writing out there on workers’ compensation and workplace issues in general,” says the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Center. “They contain a wealth of information for the workers’ compensation community with timely news items, practical information, expert analysis, tips, frequent postings, and helpful links to other sites. These blogsites also show us how workplace issues interact with politics and culture. Moreover, they demonstrate how bloggers can impact the world of workers’ compensation and workplace issues.”

We fully intend to continue diligently blogging, to earn the praise we have been given. While national recognition is certainly nice, hopefully, we are achieving our actual goal of educating the injured worker in PA.

One of the most common work injuries we see in PA is to the back, whether it is a herniated or bulging lumbar disc, an aggravation of degenerative disc disease, or a soft tissue injury, such as a strain or sprain. These injuries run from a minor strain, which can be cured by rest and medication, to a herniated disc encroaching on a lumbar nerve root, which can require injections and surgery.

When an injured worker has suffered a herniated lumbar disc, and is having pain or numbness down one or both legs (“radicular symptoms” or “lumbar radiculopathy”), surgery may be discussed. One of the more common procedures to relieve the pressure of a herniated lumbar disc pressing on a nerve root is called a discectomy, where the disc material is simply removed.

A recent article published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery examined some previous studies regarding the timing and effectiveness of lumbar discectomies. One of the more interesting findings was that pain relief occurs first after a lumbar discectomy, followed by recovery of motor function (strength), then improvement in sensation. In other words, it is not unusual for the injured worker to continue to have abnormal sensation after surgery. This is an important thing to keep in mind after surgery, so that the injured worker does not feel as if his or her recovery is not going well.

In Erisco Industries, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Luvine), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on September 3, 2008, an employer unsuccessfully tried to defend a Claim Petition by saying Claimant failed a drug test and that the drug use led to the work injury. Under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, intoxication of the injured worker can be an “affirmative defense” by the workers’ compensation insurance company. This means that the burden is on the workers’ comp insurance carrier to prove not only that the injured worker was intoxicated (by drug or alcohol), but that the intoxication caused the injury.

When Mr. Luvine filed his Claim Petition, the workers’ compensation insurance company tried to submit the results of a drug test that they alleged was positive for an illegal substance. Part of the evidence required by the workers’ comp insurance company is to show “chain of custody” regarding the drug test; basically, they must show the sample was properly collected, authenticated and controlled throughout the testing process. This is primarily applicable when the laboratory which tests the sample is not the party who obtained the sample. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) rejected the drug test results because the workers’ compensation insurance carrier failed to prove chain of custody, and the WCJ granted the Claim Petition.

Eventually, Mr. Luvine was released back to work, but his employer refused to offer him a job, since he had (in their eyes) failed the drug test. The workers’ comp insurance carrier filed a Petition to Suspend the workers’ compensation benefits, because they said the reason the injured worker was having wage loss now was that he failed a drug test (and no longer was due to the work injury).

In a developing situation we have discussed here back in May 2008, and then again in July 2008, the Philadelphia Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office will be moving to a new location. In our July 2008 blog entry, we told you of the new address of the Philadelphia Workers’ Comp Hearing Office (110 North 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107). We have now been advised of the date this relocation is scheduled to take place.

We have been told that the move to the new Philadelphia Workers’ Compensation Hearing Office will take place the week of November 17, 2008. Hearings will not be held from November 17, 2008, through November 30, 2008. The new office is then scheduled to open for business on December 1, 2008. We are told that any hearings currently scheduled for the Philadelphia Workers’ Comp Hearing Office from November 17, 2008 through November 30, 2008, will be cancelled and rescheduled.

One of the most difficult burdens an injured worker in Pennsylvania faces is when he or she is trying to reinstate PA workers’ compensation benefits after a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) has terminated such benefits. Since the granting of a Termination Petition means that the WCJ has found the claimant fully recovered from the work injury, there is a logical problem to later show the same injured has “recurred.”

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, National Fiberstock Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Grahl), shed some light on the actual burden a claimant faces in this situation. In short, the claimant must prove that, after the date the WCJ found there was a full recovery, there was a change (a worsening) of that physical condition. A previous workers’ comp decision by the Court noted that this change must be proven “by precise and credible evidence of a more definite and specific nature than that upon which initial compensation was based.”

Obviously, this is a very difficult burden for the injured worker to reach. But, as the Grahl decision shows, the burden is hardly impossible. In the Grahl case, the injured worker won her case by proving her carpal tunnel syndrome had recurred, using the doctor’s physical examination (which showed atrophy, or shrinking of the muscle) and electrodiagnostic testing (EMG test). It is this type of objective proof of the change in her condition which won the case.

Contact Information