In the recent decision of Hershey v. Woodhouse (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), (Pa. Commw., No. 904 C.D. 2022, filed Aug. 3, 2023), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court addressed the always-relevant issue of how a claimant can meet the burden of proof under the Workers’ Compensation Act of timely, legal notice under Sections 311 through 313 of the act. In particular, Woodhouse deals with what is termed “constructive notice,” or notice that is not specific, but should have been inferred by the employer given a “series of communications” between the employer and employee. The court ultimately concluded that the communications in question as revealed in the record were not sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of the act, thereby reversing the underlying decisions of both the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (board).

While the Woodhouse case is very fact specific, similar scenarios are rather common, especially with latent injuries that are not immediately obvious or clearly related to the injured worker’s employment. Understanding why the claim was ultimately denied in Woodhouse is instrumental in assisting the claimant’s practitioner both with proving legal notice in a claim petition in the presences of weak evidence and advising recently injured clients how to adequately provide legal notice.