Christian Petrucci

January 06, 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

December 02, 2015 | 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.

By Christian Petrucci

4 minute read

December 02, 2015 | 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.

By Christian Petrucci

4 minute read

October 01, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Beginning in 2003, there have been a number of significant appellate decisions dealing with Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act. The section, added as part of the 1996 Act 57 reforms to the act, created the impairment rating evaluation (IRE), which can be used by the employer to convert the status of a claimant's benefits from total to partial disability in nature should the IRE find an injured worker's "whole body impairment" to be less than 50 percent, according to the most recent edition of the American Medical Association "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment." Everything from the automatic conversion element of the section to the proper definition of "maximum medical improvement" to the competency of the IRE physician has been addressed. The various, novel attacks to the section have been necessary since in almost every instance an IRE results in a whole-body impairment of less than 50 percent and therefore places a 500-week cap on the employer's exposure for indemnity benefits. Invalidating IREs on grounds other than the percentage of whole-body impairment has been the only real successful avenue for injured workers.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

September 30, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Beginning in 2003, there have been a number of significant appellate decisions dealing with Section 306(a.2) of the Workers' Compensation Act. The section, added as part of the 1996 Act 57 reforms to the act, created the impairment rating evaluation (IRE), which can be used by the employer to convert the status of a claimant's benefits from total to partial disability in nature should the IRE find an injured worker's "whole body impairment" to be less than 50 percent, according to the most recent edition of the American Medical Association "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment." Everything from the automatic conversion element of the section to the proper definition of "maximum medical improvement" to the competency of the IRE physician has been addressed. The various, novel attacks to the section have been necessary since in almost every instance an IRE results in a whole-body impairment of less than 50 percent and therefore places a 500-week cap on the employer's exposure for indemnity benefits. Invalidating IREs on grounds other than the percentage of whole-body impairment has been the only real successful avenue for injured workers.

By Christian Petrucci

6 minute read

September 03, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF) was established by the legislature in 2006 to provide compensation for individuals injured while working for employers who failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance. An injured worker can seek recovery from the UEGF once he or she has learned that the employer does not have insurance. The Workers' Compensation Act provides that the injured worker must furnish the UEGF with notice of a claim "within 45 days after the worker knew that the employer was uninsured." The UEGF must then determine whether to begin making payments to an injured employee within 10 days of receiving the notice of a claim. One of the factors in this determination is whether the employer can show proof of insurance. If the employer is unable to provide that proof within 14 days, then a rebuttable presumption is created that the employer is not insured. After the UEGF receives this notice of a claim, it retains the right to voluntarily accept it within 21 days, or afford the injured worker an opportunity to file a claim petition against the UEGF.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read

September 02, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF) was established by the legislature in 2006 to provide compensation for individuals injured while working for employers who failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance. An injured worker can seek recovery from the UEGF once he or she has learned that the employer does not have insurance. The Workers' Compensation Act provides that the injured worker must furnish the UEGF with notice of a claim "within 45 days after the worker knew that the employer was uninsured." The UEGF must then determine whether to begin making payments to an injured employee within 10 days of receiving the notice of a claim. One of the factors in this determination is whether the employer can show proof of insurance. If the employer is unable to provide that proof within 14 days, then a rebuttable presumption is created that the employer is not insured. After the UEGF receives this notice of a claim, it retains the right to voluntarily accept it within 21 days, or afford the injured worker an opportunity to file a claim petition against the UEGF.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read

August 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, the Commonwealth Court decided the matter of Pipeline Systems v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds) (Pa. Commw Ct. No. 1577 C.D. 2014, Opinion by Judge Colins, filed July 7, 2015). Essentially, the court sustained the workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in affording the claimant compensation for injuries he suffered while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The issue was whether the claimant was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the injury.

By Christian Petrucci

10 minute read

August 05, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, the Commonwealth Court decided the matter of (Pa. Commw Ct. No. 1577 C.D. 2014, Opinion by Judge Colins, filed July 7, 2015). Essentially, the court sustained the workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in affording the claimant compensation for injuries he suffered while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The issue was whether the claimant was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the injury.

By Christian Petrucci

10 minute read

June 04, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, in the matter of School District of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hilton), No. 34 EAP 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the employers' notice requirement of Section 306(b)(3) of the Workers' Compensation Act as it pertains to a denied claim. The purpose of Section 306(b)(3) is to compel the employer to share with the injured worker any new medical information about a claimant's physical capacity to work and its possible impact on existing benefits so a claimant will be put on notice that there was a physical change in his or her condition that obligated the claimant to look for available work.

By Christian Petrucci

7 minute read