Surviving the Workers' Comp Practice During COVID-19
It goes without saying that like almost every aspect of society, the COViD-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted the practice of workers' compensation in Pennsylvania.
June 05, 2020 at 01:15 PM
6 minute read
It goes without saying that like almost every aspect of society, the COViD-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted the practice of workers' compensation in Pennsylvania. The disruption began in earnest March 17 when Gov. Tom Wolf ordered the closure of all Pennsylvania state government offices for 14 days. Wow! All hearings and mediations were promptly cancelled. From that point, uncertainty has reigned, more than anything, but the practice remains strong, albeit with scarcely any new claims. Given the absence of a universal solution, the Office of Adjudication did its best to authorize a system of judge-specific modes of communication and procedure. Some WCJs were equipped to move to a home-based practice immediately, others less so. Some implemented Zoom hearings, others Skype for Business, still others WebEx or just plain telephone hearings—especially for the approval of compromise and release agreements. Little by little, as the governor's lockdown continued to be extended and it became clear that "normal" was not returning any time soon, the bureau's capabilities began to adapt with the times. This had the potential to be debilitating, given that every judge already has his own set of procedures. The Office of Adjudication's "Special Procedures During COVID-19″ did not engender confidence that things would run smoothly.
At first, simply agreeing to continue hearings and delay testimony, with the hopes that enough busy work could take place by the time testimony was absolutely necessary was the standard procedure. Of course, that made sense with a projected return date of "no sooner than March 30." (Again, wow!) However, guarantees by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that cases of COViD-19 will emerge following a reopening of the economy and wild rumors of face masks being a permanent aspect of society, it quickly became apparent that things cannot remain in limbo for very long, especially with absolutely no clear projection of where the country will be this fall. For anyone who has ever been to Philadelphia for a workers' compensation hearing, it is essentially impossible to imagine a socially distant "call of the list." Therefore, it is time to take the bull by the horns and make the best of your practice. Merely hoping for a better future with in-person hearings and depositions will probably just leave you with a lot of unhappy clients and stagnant cases.
To begin with, given that we are no longer running around and spending wasted hours in court (albeit lost billable hours) this time can be utilized to finish (or write) every brief imaginable. I say imaginable since nothing prevents you from writing a brief on a case that still has an open record, but is missing one final hearing. Imagine being completely caught up for the first time in a decade and being able to submit a brief at the final hearing. If things return to normal sooner than expected, you are going to regret not having utilized the time better.
Next, it is time to really push files that have made their way to the back burner for whatever reason. Medical only claims. Claims with dramatically bad fact patterns. Claims with no insurance. Every firm has a number of cases that were accepted out of a desire to help someone, but with an extremely low chance of success on the merits for a variety of reasons. Given that there are few new clients with 40 million people out of work, what better time to put every available resource into winning a case once though unwinnable. Going back to clients who were previously turned away might even be an option. With precious few opportunities to engage in actual pro-bono work in the practice of workers' compensation proper, now is the time to utilize your extra time for the benefit of the public.
Perhaps most practically, it is recommended that you make contact with each of your clients, especially the ones who were in suspension status, and determine whether a reinstatement of the injured workers' benefits is appropriate. Normally with someone who has returned to employment in a modified duty capacity with restrictions, a layoff for economic reasons should warrant a reinstatement to total disability benefits, absent available work. When injured workers lose their positions due to the COViD-19 pandemic, they should be similarly entitled to a reinstatement. If you do not tell them, who will?
Finally, workers who contract COViD-19 in the course and scope of their employment could be entitled to workers' compensation benefits. While other jurisdictions have expended presumptions of relatedness to front-line workers like health care workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, grocery clerks and others through legislation, Pennsylvania has not. However, given the statistically mild presentation of many young workers who contract the disease and the normal rapid recovery times, it is not anticipated that many claims would even meet the 14-day waiting period for disability benefits, even if relatedness can be established. Of course, there are examples of COVID-19 patients with very serious and sometimes fatal consequences of vocationally acquired SARS-CoV-2, and the word needs to get out to these folks and their families what their rights are, but it is unlikely that working on COVID-19 claims will replace the time no longer dedicated to newer cases.
No matter how you approach the "current normal" it is important not to let this time pass without viewing it as an opportunity, rather than a hindrance. Treating this time as a sort of vacation, which may be tempting on its fact, is a recipe for disaster. Once the old normal becomes the new normal, God willing, this period of grace will be gone. What will your practice look like?
Christian Petrucci of the Law Offices of Christian Petrucci, concentrates his practice in the areas of workers' compensation and Social Security disability. He also counsels injured workers in matters involving employment discrimination and unemployment compensation benefits.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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