Workers' Compensation One Liners
Jane Lombard
 
 
Download printable format

 January 2007
Appeal:
Ludwikowski v. WCAB (Dubin Paper), 910 A.2d 99 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)
 Where claimant inappropriately files an appeal from the WC Judge’s decision with the WC Bureau which is then not received by the WCAB within statutory 20 days, Commw. Ct. remands to the Board to quash the appeal as untimely; timeliness of the appeal is a jurisdictional question that can be raised for the first time before the Commw. Ct.
Collateral Estoppel:
Cohen v. WCAB (City of Phila.),
909 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2006)

Supreme Court reverses Commw. Ct. and WCAB holding a Regulation 32 Civil Service determination concerning claimant’s ability to return to full duty does not collaterally estop WC Judge from reinstating workers’ compensation benefits; Court reasons the risks and benefits as well objectives and procedures under the two systems are sufficiently divergent to warrant a decision on disability by the workers’ compensation authorities.
Compromise and Release:
Medical Expenses:
Penske Truck Leasing v. WCAB (Bunkel), 910 A.2d 747 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)
 An inartfully worded Compromise and Release Agreement allowed claimant to file a subsequent claim petition to recover over $200,000 in medical expenses paid by his union fund; WC Judge held, in context of the claim petition, that the claimant sustained a work related heart attack and was thus entitled to recover reimbursement of medical expenses with statutory interest notwithstanding employer’s position that Compromise and Release intended to preclude further litigation and liability.
Judgment:
Clayton v. City of Phila.,
910 A.2d 93 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)
 Commw. Ct. affirms Common Pleas Ct. order which denied employer’s Petition to Open and Strike a Judgment taken under Section 428 of the WC Act; Court rules a judgment is properly opened only where: there is no order to make payment; 30 days for payment has not elapsed; a supersedeas has been granted; or amount owed has been paid; employer’s argument that benefits should have been offset by pension is not properly raised in a Petition to Open Judgment.
Utilization Review:
Gazzola v. WCAB (Ikon Office Solutions),
911 A.2d 662 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)
 Commw. Ct. revisits City of Pittsburgh. v. WCAB (Giesler) and clarifies where utilization review determination finds treatment not reasonable or necessary because provider under review failed to submit records, the WC Judge has jurisdiction to review the procedural circumstances and can either affirm the underlying determination or remand to the utilization reviewer for a decision on the merits of the initial request.
Jane Lombard | Chuck Katz | Steve Harlen | Paul Pauciulo
Sharon McGrail-Szabo | Sheilah Tone | Debra Matherne | Thomas Ollason