Commonwealth Court Addresses Implications of a Medical-Only NCP
Until 2004, one of the more ambiguous areas of Pennsylvania workers' compensation law had been cases where there was a claim for medical bills only, with no wage loss or disability. The respective rights, remedies and obligations of the parties was largely subject to debate.
December 02, 2015 at 11:27 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Until 2004, one of the more ambiguous areas of Pennsylvania workers' compensation law had been cases where there was a claim for medical bills only, with no wage loss or disability. The respective rights, remedies and obligations of the parties was largely subject to debate.
This situation began to change in 1999 with the Commonwealth Court's decision in Lemansky v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hagan Ice Cream), 738 A.2d 498 (Pa. Commw. 1999), which essentially required insurance companies to issue a “formal document” accepting liability for a claim, even if the injured worker missed no time from work. Although the Lemansky court imposed unreasonable contest attorney fees and penalties for the failure to file the appropriate document with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation in a “medical only” case, the court never identified what that appropriate document should be. This is because no such document existed. Up until that point, the claims-adjusting practice had been to issue formal documents acknowledging responsibility for a work injury only where the work injury resulted in an inability to work. Oftentimes, adjusters issued no document at all, or a notice of compensation denial with “box four” checked off, indicating an injury had taken place, with no corresponding disability. Unfortunately, neither of these practices conferred any rights on the injured worker, even if the intent was to pay medical expenses.
The ball was advanced much further in the 2003 case of Waldameer Park v. WCAB (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164 (Pa. Commw. 2003), which determined what document is appropriately filed in a “medical only” situation. The Waldameer court determined that it was a notice of compensation payable.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250