Christian Petrucci

January 20, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, the Commonwealth Court decided the case of White v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (City of Pittsburgh) , which dealt with the constitutional question of whether the "old age" retirement benefit offset provision of Section 204(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act violates the equal protection requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read

July 10, 2008 | The Legal Intelligencer

As discussed in this space in May, the Commonwealth Court in Diehl v. W.C.A.B. (IA Construction and Liberty Mutual Insurance), defined the ìtraditional administrative processî as set forth in the Supreme Courtís 2005 decision Gardner v. W.C.A.B. (Genesis Health Ventures). Under Gardner, an employer who does not request an Impairment Ration Evaluation, or IRE, within 60 days of the expiration of 104 weeks of total disability does not receive the automatic change of compensation benefits from total to partial under Section 306(a.2) of the Workersí Compensation Act. Instead, the court held the employer must seek a change in disability benefit status through the ìtraditional administrative processî as adjudicated through a modification petition. Since the Supreme Court did not define what was meant by the ìtraditional administrative process,î the Diehl decision was welcome news to injured workers, as it interpreted the ìtraditional administrative processî as being a work availability analysis pursuant to Kachinski v. W.C.A.B. (Vepco Construction Co.), or a labor market survey.

By Christian Petrucci

5 minute read

October 11, 2007 | Law.com

In Cinram Manufacturing Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Hill), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania last month, the law regarding the expansion of an accepted description of injury has come full circle.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

September 08, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

It is supposed to be settled law that when a workers' compensation claimant prevails in a litigated case, the workers' compensation judge must assess attorney fees against the employer unless the employer satisfies its burden of establishing a reasonable basis for the contest. The exception to this rule is for the WCJ to decline to award unreasonable contest counsel fees if the employer is able to prove that a reasonable basis for contesting the petition existed.

By Christian Petrucci

4 minute read

September 13, 2005 | Law.com

It is supposed to be settled law that when a workers' compensation claimant prevails in a litigated case, the workers' compensation judge must assess attorney fees against the employer unless the employer satisfies its burden of establishing a reasonable basis for the contest. The exception to this rule is for the WCJ to decline to award unreasonable contest counsel fees if the employer is able to prove that a reasonable basis for contesting the petition existed, says Christian Petrucci.

By Christian Petrucci

4 minute read

October 24, 2005 | Law.com

For some time, the Philadelphia Bar Association's workers' compensation section has been searching for the best way for its members to fulfill their pro bono obligations. Christian Petrucci discusses the challenge of making pro bono service part of the "culture and fabric" of workers' compensation practice, and presents some ideas for helping to reach that goal.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

August 11, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

As practitioners of workers' compensation are aware, in 1993, the General Assembly enacted Act 44, an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act, which sought to substantially control medical costs associated with work-related care.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

June 08, 2006 | The Legal Intelligencer

Recently addressed in this space was the Supreme Court case of Snizaski v. W.C.A.B. (Rox Coal Co.), which was decided earlier this year. Snizaski essentially holds that where an employer files a timely supersedeas request consistent with the Workers� Compensation Appeal Board�s regulations, it cannot be subject to the imposition of penalties for failing to satisfy the award of benefits during the pendency of the supersedeas petition.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read

August 14, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

Back in 2007, the Commonwealth Court case of Cinram Manufacturing Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Hill) held that a workers' compensation judge, or WCJ, did not err in expanding the claimant's accepted work injury from a lumbar strain to a herniated disc during the pendency of a termination petition, despite the fact that the claimant never filed a review petition seeking to expand the injury. Given that Cinram seemed to be at odds with the Supreme Court's holding in Jeanes Hospital v. W.C.A.B. (Hass) , which was the seminal case dealing with an amendment to the accepted description of injury, the court granted the employer's petition for allowance of appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld Cinram , thereby putting the issue to rest. Its implications are significant and represent an unequivocal victory for injured workers.

By Christian Petrucci

8 minute read

August 16, 2005 | Law.com

The courts have repeatedly held that neither a workers' compensation judge nor the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board have subject matter jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment. However, both sides retain the right to appeal the administrative utilization review determination for judicial review before a WCJ. This has been true of any utilization review determination until the recent Pennsylvania case of County of Allegheny v. WCAB (Geisler).

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read