0 results for 'Petrucci'
The Longshore Act and the Pa. Workers' Compensation Act
In 1927, the U.S. Congress enacted the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which most ­people call the Longshore Act. The law was designed to provide workers' compensation coverage for certain maritime workers, which essentially meant all people who work on or near the water, excluding ­actual crew members on a ship, who are covered under another federal law.How Aggrieved Must One Be to Appeal?
Occasionally, a workers' compensation claimant may win a case, but still feel aggrieved due to the ­workers' compensation judge's unwillingness to award unreasonable contest attorney fees. When a defendant becomes overly aggressive and engages in litigation without basis or simply to harass the claimant, an injured worker becomes needlessly forced to be involved in litigation. The Workers' Compensation Act is remedial in nature and was designed to prevent such situations.While Waiting on 'Protz,' Pa. Justices Rule in Another IRE Case
As the state's workers' compensation bar anxiously anticipates the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's consideration of Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 131 A.3d 572 (Pa. Commw. 2016), last week the court issued a unanimous decision in another case dealing with impairment rating evaluations (IRE), IA Construction v. WCAB (Rhodes), No. 18 WAP 2015. Recall the Commonwealth Court in Protz held that Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the American Medical Association with the legislature directing the use of "the most recent version" of the AMA guides to determine permanent impairment. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the Protz case and even granted petitions for allowance of appeal from both the claimant and the defendant. Notwithstanding that fact, the court made it clear in a footnote in Rhodes that the constitutionality of Section 306(a.2) was not raised in the case and would not be ­considered in the appeal.Pa. Supreme Court to Consider 'Pipeline Systems' Case
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently granted a petition for allowance of appeal in the matter of Pipeline Systems v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds), Pet, 384 WAL 2015. The underlying case sought to determine whether a "good Samaritan" was in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The Commonwealth Court's main focus was not on the employee's actions, which the employer deemed a ­departure from his normal job, but on what the claimant was doing at the time of his alleged departure. Given this focus, the result in Pipeline Systems was favorable to injured workers and seemingly consistent with a significant body of case law.
Workers' Compensation Fraud, 'Bad Faith' on Monday's 'The American Law Journal'
What's worse: a worker wholly fabricating an injury? Or an employer refusing workers' comp to a good Samaritan employee injured in a concrete pit ­attempting to save a worker's life?Analyzing the Pa. Supreme Court's Consideration of 'Protz'
As addressed in this space a few months ago, the Commonwealth Court's decision in Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), No. 1024 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), tackled a phrase in Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act that calls for reliance on "the most recent edition" of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairments in performing impairment rating evaluation (IREs). As is well known, the AMA guides are used to convert an injured worker's benefits from total to partial disability should the IRE conclude a claimant's "whole body impairment" is less than 50 percent. Given the rarity of a whole-body impairment in excess of 50 percent, invalidating IREs on grounds is crucial to the claimants' practice.
Commonwealth Court Addresses Adequate Notice of Injury
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.Whether an Injured Worker Should Stay With Panel Care
One of the more perplexing decisions to make as a claimant's attorney is where to advise your client to medically treat within the first 90 days following a work injury. Most people who have some tangential relationship with the workers' compensation system, such as human resource directors or attorneys who do not practice workers' compensation, will reflexively conclude that the injured worker must stay in "panel care" for the first 90 days. There is, perhaps, no area of workers' compensation law subject to greater misunderstanding than that dealing with so-called "company doctors."
Commonwealth Court Revisits Third-Party Subrogation
Cases dealing with third-party subrogation under Section 319 of the Workers' Compensation Act that make their way to the appellate courts have traditionally not been very competitive.Commonwealth Court Addresses Implications of a Medical-Only NCP
Until 2004, one of the more ambiguous areas of Pennsylvania workers' compensation law had been cases where there was a claim for medical bills only, with no wage loss or disability. The respective rights, remedies and obligations of the parties was largely subject to debate.TRENDING STORIES
More from ALM
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Carolyn Burbrink, Uber Director of Volume Mobility Safety and Insurance Litigation 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Andy Goldberg, Laner Muchin Managing Partner 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at Legalweek 2024: Priori CEO and Co-Founder Basha Rubin; Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Patrick Oot 1 minute read
Resources
7 Proven Strategies for Implementing a Workers' Comp Cloud Platform
Brought to you by Origami Risk
Download Now
Maximizing Liquidity and Loan Growth: A Credit Union's Success Story
Brought to you by Upstart
Download Now
Candid Conversations: Couples, Money & Conflict
Brought to you by eMoney Advisor
Download Now
Clean Your Data to Support Member Retention and Growth
Brought to you by Melissa
Download Now