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.


Multiple Employers May Be Entitled to Statutory Immunity

In Nagle v. TrueBlue, Inc., the Commonwealth Court held that under Section 303(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee may have more than one employer, both of whom are entitled to immunity.


November 2016 Edition
Volume X
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


Subrogation Under the Heart and Lung Act

In Pennsylvania State Police v. WCAB (Bushta), the Commonwealth Court ruled that an employer is not entitled to subrogation from a claimant’s third-party recovery under the Heart and Lung Act.


Timeliness of Joinder Claims

Under 34 Pa. Code § 131.36, a joinder petition in a workers’ compensation matter must be filed no later than 20 days after the first hearing at which evidence regarding the reason for joinder is sought. In Jackson v. WCAB (Radnor School District), the Commonwealth Court held that the 20-day time period begins when evidence is presented regarding the reason for which joinder is sought, not evidence establishing a reason for requesting joinder.


Presumption of Compensability in Occupational Diseases Claims

In Demchenko v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia), the Commonwealth Court ruled that the presumption of compensability in Section 301(f) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, does not apply to a firefighter/claimant who does not demonstrate that his cancer was an occupational disease under Section 108(r). Section 108(r) requires proof that the Group 1 carcinogens to which the claimant was exposed have been shown to cause the type of cancer for which he has been diagnosed.


Statute of Limitations in Occupation Disease Claims

Under Section 301(f) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, there is a two-tiered limitations period for Section 108(r) claims based upon exposure to a known Group 1 carcinogen. First, a claimant must file the claim within 300 weeks of the last day of work with exposure to a known Group 1 carcinogen. If the claimant fails to do so, he is not foreclosed from bringing a claim by Section 301(f), but he loses the statutory presumption of compensability under Sections 301(e) and 301(f). If the claimant does not file the claim within 600 weeks of his last workplace exposure to the hazard, he is foreclosed from bringing the claim in its entirety. So ruled the Commonwealth Court in Fargo v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia).