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.


No Benefits for Injuries While Commuting

In Leisure Line Adventure Trails, Coach USA Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Walker), the Commonwealth Court affirmed that injuries sustained while commuting to work are not compensable under the “coming and going” rule. This decision also affirmed that the issue whether a claimant is within the scope of his employment is a legal conclusion, and that Yellow Freight would not apply (even though the employer filed an untimely answer).


December 2009 Edition
Volume III
Number 11
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


Only Wage Losses May Be Suspended for Failing to Attend an IME

Ruling on a case of first impression, the Commonwealth Court, in Giant Eagle Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, ruled that under Section 314 of the Act, only wage loss/indemnity benefits, and not medical benefits, may be suspended as the result of an employee’s refusal to submit to a court-ordered physical examination.


Notice of Ability to Return to Work is Timely, Unless Claimant Shows Prejudice

That is the Commonwealth Court’s holding in Bently v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Board of Education), in which the Court rejected claimant’s arguments that the employer failed to promptly provide him with a Notice of Ability to Return to Work. The Court also held that the correction of a technical error in the date of modification of the Claimant’s benefits did not entitle claimant to litigation expenses.


Qualifiers Don’t Invalidate a Job Offer

In Presby Homes and Services v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Quiah), the Commonwealth Court ruled that a modified duty job offer to an injured worker constituted a bona fide offer even though the employer reserved the right to revise the duties of the job and offered the job on an “at will” basis.