Christian Petrucci

November 03, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

As is well known, an employer's right to subrogation under Section 319 of the Workers' Compensation Act has consistently been found to be ­absolute, with few exceptions. The most notable example being where the injured worker recovers from an uninsured motorist policy paid for by the employee himself. There is, however, another exception that can be missed, which was recently addressed in the Commonwealth Court case of Pennsylvania State Police v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Bushta), No. 2426 C.D. 2015.

By Christian Petrucci

10 minute read

October 05, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

When litigating a workers' ­compensation case, the parties are often at the whim of a ­doctor who has a remarkably busy schedule and who may cancel a deposition on the eve of a scheduling order in a case before a regimented workers' compensation judge. Moreover, fact witnesses who are less than concerned with your client's case are often difficult to locate or reach and can give the parties fits in agreeing on a mutually ­convenient date, time and place for a ­deposition. All of these potential delays can lead to a case being either withdrawn or ­dismissed with or without prejudice to refile.

By Christian Petrucci

13 minute read

September 06, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

In 1927, the U.S. Congress enacted the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which most ­people call the Longshore Act. The law was designed to provide workers' compensation coverage for certain maritime workers, which essentially meant all people who work on or near the water, excluding ­actual crew members on a ship, who are covered under another federal law.

By Christian Petrucci

12 minute read

August 04, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Occasionally, a workers' compensation claimant may win a case, but still feel aggrieved due to the ­workers' compensation judge's unwillingness to award unreasonable contest attorney fees. When a defendant becomes overly aggressive and engages in litigation without basis or simply to harass the claimant, an injured worker becomes needlessly forced to be involved in litigation. The Workers' Compensation Act is remedial in nature and was designed to prevent such situations.

By Christian Petrucci

9 minute read

June 02, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

As the state's workers' compensation bar anxiously anticipates the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's consideration of Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 131 A.3d 572 (Pa. Commw. 2016), last week the court issued a unanimous decision in another case dealing with impairment rating evaluations (IRE), IA Construction v. WCAB (Rhodes), No. 18 WAP 2015. Recall the Commonwealth Court in Protz held that Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the American Medical Association with the legislature directing the use of "the most recent version" of the AMA guides to determine permanent impairment. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the Protz case and even granted petitions for allowance of appeal from both the claimant and the defendant. Notwithstanding that fact, the court made it clear in a footnote in Rhodes that the constitutionality of Section 306(a.2) was not raised in the case and would not be ­considered in the appeal.

By Christian Petrucci

10 minute read

May 05, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently granted a petition for allowance of appeal in the matter of Pipeline Systems v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds), Pet, 384 WAL 2015. The underlying case sought to determine whether a "good Samaritan" was in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The Commonwealth Court's main focus was not on the employee's actions, which the employer deemed a ­departure from his normal job, but on what the claimant was doing at the time of his alleged departure. Given this focus, the result in Pipeline Systems was favorable to injured workers and seemingly consistent with a significant body of case law.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

April 07, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

As addressed in this space a few months ago, the Commonwealth Court's decision in Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), No. 1024 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), tackled a phrase in Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act that calls for reliance on "the most recent edition" of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairments in performing impairment rating evaluation (IREs). As is well known, the AMA guides are used to convert an injured worker's benefits from total to partial disability should the IRE conclude a claimant's "whole body impairment" is less than 50 percent. Given the rarity of a whole-body impairment in excess of 50 percent, invalidating IREs on grounds is crucial to the claimants' practice.

By Christian Petrucci

11 minute read

March 03, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Recently, the Commonwealth Court ordered to be reported Penske Logistics v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Troxel), 713 C.D. 2014, an opinion that had previously been decided as a memorandum opinion back in June 2015. The issue at hand was whether the claimant met his burden of proof under the Workers' Compensation Act that he gave timely notice of his work injury to his employer by "reporting it" to another employee. The court concluded that the communication in question as outlined in the record did not satisfy the notice requirements of the act, thereby reversing the underlying decision of the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board.

By Christian Petrucci

9 minute read

February 04, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the more perplexing decisions to make as a claimant's attorney is where to advise your client to medically treat within the first 90 days following a work injury. Most people who have some tangential relationship with the workers' compensation system, such as human resource directors or attorneys who do not practice workers' compensation, will reflexively conclude that the injured worker must stay in "panel care" for the first 90 days. There is, perhaps, no area of workers' compensation law subject to greater misunderstanding than that dealing with so-called "company doctors."

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read

January 07, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Cases dealing with third-party subrogation under Section 319 of the Workers' Compensation Act that make their way to the appellate courts have traditionally not been very competitive.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read