Listed below are some decisions recently issued by Pennsylvania's appellate courts that involve workers' compensation claims.
Equitable Resources, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Thomas) - The courts have found that if you require modifications to your residence to make it accessible as a result of your work injury, your employer typically had to pay only once for the modifications, except to the extent that a particular alteration (for example, stair glides) wore out over time. In Equitable Resources, the court found that, where the employer hired the contractor to make the modifications, and these modifications were defective, the employer must pay to fix them.
Pittsburgh Mercy Health System v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (US Steel Corporation) - If your doctor submits all of the documentation required in order to be paid by workers' compensation, and some or all of the charges are rejected, the doctor has 30 days from the date of nofication of the disputed charges to file a Petition for Fee Review. If no such petition is filed, a Fee Review will not be available to your doctor.
Presby Homes and Services v. W.C.A.B. (Quiah) - The employer wrote to the injured worker and offered a light duty job. Its doctor said that the injured worker was capable of doing the duties of the job. The letter contained two reservations: it noted that the worker remained an at-will employee, and that the employer reserved the right to change the job duties. The worker argued that because of the reservations in the letter, the job was not actually "available" and the job offer did not provide a basis for reducing her weekly checks. However, the court found that, despite the reservations in the letter, the letter was a valid job offer. Thus, because the worker had not accepted the job, it reduced her benefits. This decision reinforces my recommendation that an injured worker who is offered a job try to do that job unless he or she clearly cannot perform that job or it otherwise is legally unavailable.
Giant Eagle, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Givner) - The employee failed to attend a medical examination scheduled by the employer even though the judge had ordered her to attend the examination. The employer filed a petition asking that the court allow it to stop making the weekly payments to the employee and to stop paying for her medical treatment. After the workers' compensation allowed the employer to stop making the weekly payments but required the ongoing payment for medical treatment, the employer appealed. The Commonwealth Court found that the issue of whether a judge can allow an employer to stop paying for medical treatment due to the employee's failure to attend an examination scheduled by the employer had not previously been addressed by the courts. It found that the rationale for refusing to allow payment for medical treatment to be suspended was logical under the case law, and thus sustained the judge's original decision. However, the language of the decision suggests that in another case, it may sustain an order of a judge that expressly suspends payment of medical bills because the employee failed to attend an examination.