Workers' Compensation

In Hartford Insurance Group On Behalf of Chunli Chen v. Kafumbra Kamara, et al, Pa. (November 21, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that the right of action against the tortfeasor remains with the injured employee.

In City of Philadelphia Fire Dep’t v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sladek), 13 EAP 2017, 2018 WL 5046516 (Pa. Oct. 17, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made it easier for firefighters to get workers’ compensation benefits for cancer caused by work. 

In Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lin & E. Taste), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (“CWMA”) only applies to construction businesses for purposes of determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

In Pennsylvania State Police v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bushta), 14 WAP 2017, 2018 WL 2408166, at *1 (Pa. May 29, 2018), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) is not entitled to subrogation of a state trooper’s third-party settlement for benefits paid under the Heart and Lung Act.

In Commonwealth v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Piree), 995 C.D. 2017, 2018 WL 1611532 (Pa.Cmwlth. Apr. 4, 2018), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed that a self-insured employer is not entitled to subrogation of a workers’ compensation lien for periods an employee is eligible for benefits concurrently under the Heart and Lung Act and Workers’ Compensation Act. 

In Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., CV 16-573, 2018 WL 1744467 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2018), the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”), motion for summary judgment after determining Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving they were employees of Uber under federal and state minimum wage and overtime laws.

In US Airways v. WCAB, 2018 WL 1003596 (2/22/18), the Commonwealth Court held that a flight attendant who was injured on a shuttle bus which was transporting her from her job at the Philadelphia Airport to an employee parking lot was in the course of her employment. 

In Burch v. WCAB, 2018 WL 1102078 (Pa. Cmwlth Ct., 3/1/18), employee didn’t notify her employer of a work injury because her employer gave bonuses to all employees if the company had no work injuries for the year. 

In Grimm v. WCAB, Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., WL 280380, (1/4/18), claimant separated from his wife 18 months before she suffered a fatal work-related heart attack.  The record showed that decedent provided health insurance for claimant through her employer. 

In Smith v. W.C.A.B., 2018 WL 296840 (January 5, 2018), the Commonwealth Court clarified the employer’s burden of proof with respect to petitions to modify benefits based on a labor market survey. 

In Zuber v. Boscov’s, 2017 WL 3974513 (3rd Cir. 9/11/17), the Third Circuit held that the language of the release contained in a workers’ compensation Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement, did not bar the employee from suing his employer under FMLA and Pennsylvania common law employee rights theories.

In Haslam v. WCAB, 2017 WL 3798517, (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., 9/1/17), the Commonwealth Court reversed the WCAB which had concluded that Employer was NOT required to pay for treatment of claimant’s RRS/CRPS condition after claimant entered into a Compromise and Release (“C&R”) Agreement which described Claimant’s injury on a standardized Labor & Industry form as “[v]arious injuries and bodily parts including but not necessarily limited to fractured

In D&R Construction v. WCAB, 2017 WL 3254789,  (August 1, 2017), the Commonwealth Court held that the CWMA may not be applied retroactively,

In Protz v. W.C.A.B., 2017 WL 2644474 (Pa Supreme Court, June 20, 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down Section 306 (a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

In Merrell v. WCAB, 2017 WL 1210197 (April 3, 2017), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a decision by a Heart & Lung  arbitrator that a claimant was disabled and thus entitled to Heart & Lung benefits was not binding on the Workers’ Compensation Judge.