As if we needed any reminding, a few weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a precedential opinion in the matter of Wolfe v. Martellas Pharmacy (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board) (Pa. Commw., No.432 C.D. 2021, filed Aug. 31, 2022), revisiting Raymour & Flanigan v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Obeid), 264 A.3d (Pa. Commw. 2021), and the significant damage it did to the bureau document system that has governed the practice of workers’ compensation since its inception. Raymour & Flanigan basically nullified the requirement, plainly stated in the act, that a notice stopping temporary compensation (NSTC) and a notice of compensation denial (NCD) be filed when an employer seeks “cap” a notice of temporary compensation payable (NTCP) during its 90-day effective period. Raymour & Flanigan approved the filing of a so-called “medical only” NCP to negate even an NTCP that accepted wage-loss benefits. No longer was the prerequisite NSTC or NCD required. While the court in both Raymour and Wolfe point to a bureau regulation for authority to negate the plain reading of the act, it is hoped that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will have the last word.

As a refresher, the Raymour court basically allowed Section 121.17(d) of the bureau’s regulations to supersede Section 406.1(d)(5) of the act when it found that a MO-NCP was merely “one variety” of an NCP and allowed the filing of that document to trump the statutorily mandated need for an employer to file a NSTC and an NCD. The regulation provides in pertinent part as follows:

  • “121.17. Change in compensation.