As the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for; you might get it. This saying is currently playing itself out in the world of Pennsylvania workers’ compensation law. In June, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District) invalidated Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act as unconstitutional, fulfilling every claimant practitioner’s wish. Since then, “experts” have been predicting a significant rise in the cost of workers’ compensation insurance in Pennsylvania, resulting in a potentially worse situation than prior to the Supreme Court’s action. In August, the Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau (PCRB) proposed a 6.06 percent increase in the loss cost which the Pennsylvania Insurance Department is still reviewing past the proposed effective date. For its part, the Pennsylvania Legislature is attempting to cobble together a bill which would ostensibly bring balance once again to the force. The rating bureau has indicated that it would withdraw the exorbitant loss cost increase if the Legislature passed a bill negating the Protz decision.
For over 20 years, the claimant’s bar has been attempting to neutralize the effects of Act 57 of 1996, and in particular Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which was an attempt by the Pennsylvania Legislature to impose on a wage-loss state the permanency ratings stemming from Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs) that are germane to schedule states. While the difference between the two workers’ compensation benefit schemes is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say the effort was akin to putting a square peg in a round hole. There have been a myriad of Commonwealth and Supreme Court decisions over the years addressing all aspects of the IRE. In the end it was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
