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.


Mendes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Lisbon Contractors, Inc.), No. 154 C.D. 2009 (Pa.Cmwlth., May 29, 2009)

Holding: An employer was not required to show a change in condition or present any medical evidence in order to suspend Claimant’s benefits when the Claimant has removed himself from the workforce by residing in Portugal for more than seven years.


September 2009 Edition
Volume III
Number 8
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


McLaurin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (SEPTA), No. 40 C.D. 2009 (Pa.Cmwlth., June 5, 2009)

Holding: A Septa bus driver, who suffers psychological injuries after a passenger pulled a gun out of his pocket, causing the driver to fear that he would be shot, is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefit. The Court affirmed the WCJ and WCAB opinions because the record established that (1) bus drivers were informed that assaults, including life-threatening situations, were not uncommon; (2) the Employer advised new bus drivers to expect dangerous passengers; and, (3) the Employer trained new bus drivers about how to deal with dangerous situations.


ESAB Welding & Cutting Products v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wallen), No. 60 C.D. 2006 (Pa.Cmwlth., May 22, 2009)

Holding: An employer failed to meet its burden of establishing that the Claimant had withdrawn from the workforce when the evidence established that (1) the employer considered claimant an active employee, (2) claimant continued to receive holiday and vacation pay and accrued seniority, (3) the Employer did not offer work to the claimant within his physical limitations, despite claimant’s willingness to accept such a position.


Pittsburgh Mercy Health System v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, No. 2104 C.D. 2008 (Pa.Cmwlth., May 29, 2009)

Holding: A medical provider that submits its bill in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Act, must challenge the amount of the employer’s payment using the fee review process, and comply with all applicable filing deadlines. In particular, under section 306(f.1)(5) of the Act, that an application for fee review must be filed no more than thirty (30) days following notification – not final notification – of a disputed treatment.