Recently, the Commonwealth Court ordered to be reported Penske Logistics v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Troxel), 713 C.D. 2014, an opinion that had previously been decided as a memorandum opinion back in June 2015. The issue at hand was whether the claimant met his burden of proof under the Workers’ Compensation Act that he gave timely notice of his work injury to his employer by “reporting it” to another employee. The court concluded that the communication in question as outlined in the record did not satisfy the notice requirements of the act, thereby reversing the underlying decision of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.
While the Penske case is highly fact-specific, it is not difficult to envision a similar scenario playing out with any injured worker. Appreciating the pitfalls presented in Penske will help the claimant’s practitioner properly advise the injured worker in real time what is necessary in providing legal notice to an employer and, similarly, will offer guidance in presenting weak evidence should the claimant seek representation long after the period for providing legal notice has expired.
