Workers' Comp In-Cites
Welcome to the latest edition of Schaff & Young's Workers' Comp In-Cites. Designed to provide our clients with practical insight, Workers' Comp In-Cites outlines recent developments in Pennsylvania workers' compensation law and explains how those decisions impact our clients and their cases. Barbara Young, Michael Schaff and the other attorneys at Schaff & Young, P.C. are always available to discuss these cases – or any other questions or concerns you might have. Just give us a call at (215) 988-0090 or send an email to info@schaffyoung.com. We look forward to hearing from you.


To Suspend Benefits, Follow the Rules

Section 306(f.1)(8) of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not authorize an employer to deduct a credit from a claimant’s future benefits as the result of the claimant’s noncompliance with the Workers’ Compensation Act, according to the Commonwealth Court in Lisanti Painting Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Starinchak). Rather, an employer who believes a claimant has refused medical treatment must file a petition seeking a suspension of benefits until claimant agrees to undergo the medical treatment at issue.


June 2009 Edition
Volume III
Number 6
www.schaffyoung.com


Schaff & Young, P.C.
One South Broad Street
Suite 1650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
P: 215-988-0090
F: 215-988-0091
www.schaffyoung.com
info@schaffyoung.com


Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement Permitted Following a C&R

That was the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Ethan-Allen Eldridge Division). In this case, the Court ruled that when a claimant and employer enter into a Compromise and Release Agreement (C&R) following the denial of supersedeas, and the C&R leaves a certain period open for subsequent determination, the pending suspension petition is not rendered moot. Consequently, the employer may seek reimbursement for the benefits paid during pendency of the action following denial of its supersedeas request.


Utilization Reviews – Without a Verification, the Provider Loses

In Sexton v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Forest Park Health Center), the Commonwealth Court held that when a medical provider fails to sign a Verification attesting that the records provided constitute the true and complete medical records, the Utilization Review Organization is required to deem the treatments unreasonable and unnecessary because the records were not properly submitted by the provider.