| |
 |
Workers' Compensation One Liners
Jane Lombard
|
|
|
| |
 Download printable format
February 2008
|
Credits:
Mosley v. WCAB (City of Pittsburgh),
937 A.2d 607 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007)
|
In an action termed “nonsensical” by WCJ and deemed to be “advancing an absurd statutory construction” theory by the Commw. Ct., claimant challenged employer’s right to credit for pension benefits paid where WC benefits are paid pursuant to an injury, not an occupational disease; the Court reasoned that the legislative intent was to expand available credits under Section 204. |
|
Impairment Rating Evaluation:
Sign Innovation v. WCAB (Ayers),
937 A.2d 623 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007)
|
Employer is not precluded from pursuing a Petition for Modification based on an IME and labor market survey despite an impairment rating of 50 percent; stressing impairment is different from disability and IRE remedy is in addition to other available remedies, Commw. Ct. allows the petition to go forward and further held that employer is not liable for unreasonable contest attorney’s fees.
|
|
Penalties/Utilization Review:
Schenk v. WCAB (Ford Electronics),
937 A.2d 1156 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007)
|
Commw. Ct. reversed WCAB which had affirmed denial of Penalty Petition relying on their recent decision in Bucks County Community College; Court held an employer may not rely on a Utilization Review determination regarding treatment rendered by a specific provider to support non-payment of medical bills for similar treatment by a different provider; the UR determination is provider specific, not treatment specific. |
|
Subrogation:
Gillette v. Wurst,
937 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2007)
|
Pa. Supreme Ct. rules that trial Judge has jurisdiction to rule on the interplay between WC Act, Wrongful Death Statute, and intestacy laws where WC insurer sought to intervene in wrongful death action to protect its right to subrogation where widow had disclaimed recovery in an attempt to defeat insurer’s subrogation interest; Court reasoned that the insurer is entitled to subrogate not on the amount the widow actually received but on the share she had the right to receive, she was not permitted to disclaim a right held by the WC insurer. |
|
Utilization Review:
Loc, Inc. v. WCAB (Graham),
936 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2007)
|
Commw. Ct. holds that the WCJ has jurisdiction to review Utilization Review Determination where the reviewer had some records from the provider under review, spoke with the provider, and issued a report; a motion pursuant to Giesler is inappropriate where although not all information was provided to the reviewer enough was provided to permit a determination. |
Jane Lombard | Chuck Katz | Steve Harlen | Paul Pauciulo | Sheilah Tone
Sharon McGrail-Szabo | Debra Matherne | Thomas Ollason | Bill Conwell | Joseph F. Frattone |
|
|
