A claimant’s voluntary withdrawal from the workforce and its effect on the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits had been, until recently, fairly well settled. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided SEPTA v. WCAB (Henderson) in 1995, a claimant who voluntarily left the labor market faced a suspension of his or her disability benefits. In order for disability benefits to continue following a retirement, a claimant had to show that he or she was either seeking employment or forced into retirement by a work-related injury. The Henderson court further reasoned that an employer should not be required to show that a claimant did not intend to return to work because such a burden would be prohibitive.
Recently, a series of decisions from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has called into question what was previously taken for granted per Henderson : if an injured worker was not actively looking for work, he or she was presumed to be retired and not entitled to disability benefits. In City of Pittsburgh and UPMC Benefit Management Services Inc. v. WCAB (Robinson) ,the Commonwealth Court addressed the issue of determining when a claimant “retires” so that an employer may suspend workers’ compensation benefits. Utilizing the Supreme Court’s rationale in Henderson , the Commonwealth Court, in a plurality opinion, held that an employer is not required to help an injured worker find available work or prove work availability if the “totality of the circumstances” makes it clear that such efforts would be futile. Additionally, the Robinson court explained that, where the claimant has applied for and received a pension, it is necessary to look at the type of pension in order to determine whether such action creates a presumption that a claimant has indeed retired.
