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.


Employers Do Not Need to Seek Agreement from a Statute of Limitations Is 3 Years for Wage Loss Claim When Carrier Issues Medical Only NCP

When an employer accepts a claim by issuing a Medical Only Notice of Compensation Payable, a claimant must file a Claim Petition seeking wage loss/disability benefits within three years of the date of the injury,pursuant to Section 315 of the Act. In Sloane v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia), the Commonwealth Court noted that the payment of medical benefits does not toll the statute of limitations because medical benefits are not payments "in lieu of workers' compensation benefits" under Section 315.


November 2015 Edition
Volume IX
Number 10
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


Claimant Must File a Claim Petition to Seek Wage Losses after Carrier Issues Medical Only NCP

In Ingrassia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Universal Health Services, Inc.), the Commonwealth Court ruled that when an employer accepts a claim by issuing a Medical Only Notice of Compensation Payable, a claimant must file a Claim Petition if he or she seeks wage loss/disability benefits.


Supreme Court Affirms the Need for a Work-Related Connection for an Injury to be Compensable

A worker is entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act if either (1) the employee is injured in furtherance of the employer's business or affairs, or (2) the employee is (a) injured on premises occupied or under the control of the employer, (b) required by the nature of the employment to be present on the premises, and (c) injured by the condition of the premises or by operation of the employer's business or affairs. Thus, according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in O'Rourke v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gartland), a paid caregiver who is stabbed by her son in the middle of the night of the night while sleeping in her bedroom in her own home is not entitled to benefits under the Act.


Franchisor is Not a Statutory Employer

In Saladworks, L.L.C. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gaudioso and Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund), the Commonwealth Court held that a franchisee in the business of selling franchises is not statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act.