by

While, in Pennsylvania, an injured worker generally cannot sue his or her employer for causing the injury, the injured worker is free to sue a third party. For example, the injured worker could file an action against a manufacturer of a product which caused the injury, or another driver who caused an accident. When an injured worker receives a settlement or a verdict leading to the recovery of money from a third party, Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act says the workers’ compensation insurance carrier is entitled to be repaid all or part of the benefits the carrier paid to the injured worker.

Though the goals of Section 319 are somewhat logical – to keep a party from receiving a double benefit, the result of this law is often troublesome. In effect, between the repayment made from the recovery, and the credit the workers’ compensation insurance carrier enjoys against future wage and medical benefits, the injured worker often winds up netting absolutely nothing from the third party case. Considering that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act does not provide for any compensation for pain and suffering, it seems terribly unjust that the injured worker can recover money in a third party case, intended to compensate for pain and suffering, and yet end up netting nothing.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the case of Gorman v. WCAB. Here, the claimant settled his workers’ comp case. At that time, he was not pursuing a third party suit. In the Compromise & Release Agreement (the document used when a workers’ compensation case is settled in PA), the parties stated that there was no lien for any third party case. After the workers’ compensation settlement was done, the claimant successfully pursued a third party case and recovered money.

Continue reading

by

As a general rule, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act requires medical providers to submit their bills to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier on the correct forms. Again, the usual rule is that the workers’ comp insurance carrier is not required to pay bills until they are submitted on the proper forms (and until supporting documentation is provided).

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, however, confirms the beliefs of us Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys, who feel this technical step is not always necessary. In Shelton v. WCAB, decided by the Court on June 26, 2008, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier was ordered to pay medical bills even though the bills were not submitted on the proper forms.

In this case, the Court drew a distinction between the situations when the claim has already been accepted as opposed to one where there has never been liability of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier established. When the liability of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier has not yet been established, then bills must be on the proper forms. When we are dealing with an accepted claim, then this technicality may not be necessary.

by

In a previous blog entry, I mentioned the April 28, 2008 decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Diehl v. WCAB, which greatly limited what a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in Pennsylvania can do with an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). This decision was very favorable to the injured worker. Unfortunately, on June 24, 2008, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an order, and granted the workers’ compensation insurance company’s application for reargument, and vacated the prior decision. This means that, for now, the law returns as it had been before the Diehl decision was issued (meaning the workers’ comp insurance company does NOT have to show job availability when trying to have benefits changed to partial based on an IRE).

Though there will be reargument on this case, and a new decision will be issued, many of us Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys doubt that the new decision will be as favorable as the one which has been vacated. We will, of course, post about the new decision when it is made.

by

Last month, I wrote a blog entry explaining how every State, including Pennsylvania, had very different laws governing workers’ compensation systems within that State. One point I should clear up is that not every injured worker in Pennsylvania automatically qualifies for the PA workers’ compensation system. Whole occupations, or groups of workers, are subject to workers’ comp systems which vary from the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

For example, employees of the Federal Government must go under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), which is administered by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWCP). Railroad workers are usually subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which uses the Federal Court system for its procedure. The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“Longshore Act”) governs employees engaged in maritime activities (though these cases sometimes have “dual jurisdiction” in PA and can proceed either through the Longshore Act or the regular Pennsylvania workers’ comp system, often depending whether the injury took place on the water or on dry land). So, not every worker who is injured in PA will be proceeding through the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

On the other hand, there are times when a worker who is injured in another State can still proceed under the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system (Like the example above with the Longshore Act, this is known as “dual jurisdiction,” since there would also likely be jurisdiction in the State in which the injury took place). In this situation, we look at where the injured worker was hired, where the injured worker usually worked (and where the injured worker expected to work), and other factors, to see what options the injured worker has for which workers’ comp system to use.

Continue reading

by

The rotator cuff is where four muscles and several tendons form a covering around the top of the humerus, the upper arm bone, in the shoulder. While tears in this region of the shoulder can occur with the wear and tear of using the shoulder over years, a rotator cuff tear is also a common injury we see in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases. This type of injury can occur in many different ways, including lifting or falling on the shoulder. Even repetitive use of the shoulder at work over years can lead to a compensable work-related rotator cuff tear.

A torn rotator cuff is generally categorized as either small, medium, large or massive. Initial treatment for a tear usually consists of “conservative” (non-surgical) options, such as physical therapy, medications and/or injections. If these conservative methods do not relieve the problem, surgery may be indicated.

The problem comes with the “massive” rotator cuff tears. These tears used to be called irreparable. The injured worker was left with only two choices – either live with the pain and disability, or have a “debridement procedure” performed (this is a surgical procedure where the area is cleaned out, though the tear is not repaired). In the past, the injured worker remained on workers’ compensation benefits, and remained unable to perform ordinary daily activities of living, let alone work.

Continue reading

by

There are many factors which have to be considered when an injured worker wants to settle his or her workers’ comp case in PA. Even aside from the primary things people think about, such as how much money will be involved, one has to determine if approval from the Centers for Medicare Services (CMS) will be required.

Under Federal Law, known as the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, all parties to workers’ compensation settlements in Pennsylvania must “consider the interests of Medicare” with regard to the settlement. This is regardless of whether the injured worker is entitled to Medicare or not. CMS does not want the burden of future medical treatment for the injured worker to simply be shifted from the workers’ compensation insurance carrier to Medicare.

CMS has certain guidelines for when their approval is needed. When a workers’ compensation settlement is more than $25,000.00 and the injured worker is entitled to Medicare, CMS must actually approve the terms of the settlement. Additionally, if the workers’ compensation settlement is over $250,000.00 (it is extremely rare for a workers’ comp settlement in PA to be more than $250,000.00) and the injured worker has a “reasonable expectation” that he or she will be entitled to Medicare within 30 months of the date of the workers’ compensation settlement, again, CMS must approve the settlement. In particular, CMS will want to approve the amount of the settlement which is allocated to future medical treatment.

Continue reading

by

Many injured workers in Pennsylvania are not aware that they can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD), while still receiving workers’ comp benefits in PA. Though the two programs have different standards for what “disabled” means, and the injured worker may not be able to receive full benefits from both programs, there is no need to choose one or the other.

An injured worker qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania when he or she is disabled from work by an injury which took place in the scope and course of his or her employment. One qualifies for Social Security Disability benefits when one is disabled from all gainful employment, regardless of the cause of the disability. Many times, the workers’ comp claimant in PA qualifies for both, but is not aware they can receive both.

Between the two programs, a workers’ compensation claimant in Pennsylvania can only receive a certain percentage of their pre-injury earnings. Usually this amount will be more than the workers’ comp benefits alone. Plus, getting approved for SSD will lead to getting Medicare benefits, which can be a valuable resource. The Social Security Administration will withhold any SSD benefits a workers’ compensation claimant in Pennsylvania would otherwise be entitled to (the amount of SSD over that percentage of pre-injury earnings). There is no deduction from workers’ comp benefits in PA for SSD (contrary to Social Security Retirement benefits, for which the workers’ compensation insurance carrier gets a credit in Pennsylvania).

Continue reading

by

In a very disturbing decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in Watson v. W.C.A.B. (Special People in Northeast), reported by the Court on May 30, 2008, the injured worker was denied reimbursement of litigation costs, even though the injured worker was successful in part of her Claim Petition.

Claimant filed a Claim Petition three days after her injury (a fact for which the injured worker was chided by the Court, who, seemingly would prefer the injured worker sit and wait with no assurance her claim would ever be accepted by the workers’ comp insurance carrier). An Answer was filed by the workers’ comp insurance carrier admitting Claimant suffered a head contusion in the work injury.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge eventually found the doctors offered by the workers’ comp insurance carrier more credible and denied the wage loss aspect of the Claim Petition (Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, no wage loss benefits are payable unless there are more than seven days of disability; here the Workers’ Compensation Judge found only three days of disability).

Continue reading

by

Many injured workers in Pennsylvania know not to sign a document they receive from the workers’ compensation insurance company without checking first with an experienced workers’ compensation attorney. Unfortunately, few injured workers are aware that some documents exist in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act which can cause workers’ comp benefits to be reduced, or stopped, even if the documents are NOT signed by the injured worker.

When an injured worker returns to work in PA, he or she is still entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if there is still a loss in earnings (maybe the modified job pays less per hour, or offers fewer hours). The workers’ compensation insurance company must take some action if it wishes to reduce, or stop, weekly compensation benefits. In the old days, the workers’ compensation insurance company would have to file a Petition for Modification or Suspension, and litigate the issue. This is no longer the case.

These days, the workers’ compensation insurance company can simply file a Notification of Modification or Suspension, which contains an affidavit that the injured worker has returned to work, whether at pre-injury or reduced wages. If the Notification of Modification or Suspension is not “challenged” (appealed) by the injured worker, the Notification of Modification or Suspension has the same legal effect as if the injured worker signed a Supplemental Agreement, agreeing that the injured worker did return to work at those wages.

Continue reading

by

In an earlier blog entry, I explained the process of workers’ compensation appeals in Pennsylvania. Since the Supreme Court of PA can accept only those appeals it wishes, very few workers’ compensation cases are heard by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, on May 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania announced that they have accepted the appeal in Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Hill), which had been decided last year by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. I say “unfortunately” because the decision had been favorable to injured workers, and seemed based on common sense.

In making its decision, the Commonwealth Court of PA found that a Workers’ Compensation Judge in Pennsylvania had the power to add to the description of injury, even if the injured worker did not file a Petition to Review the Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). For example, in this case, a Petition for Termination was the only petition filed.

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 – 2025, Brilliant & Neiman, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design