Last year, the Commonwealth Court decided the matter of Fitzgibbons v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia), which held that an injured worker has three years from the last date of payment of compensation to file a petition to review the description of injury. This ruling was issued in context of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cinram Manufacturing Inc. v. W.C.A.B.(Hill) , which concluded that there are two instances where an injured worker can attempt to amend an NCP: the “corrective amendment,” which is an injury present at the time the NCP was prepared but not reflected on it, and the “consequential” amendment, which is a new condition that arises after the date of injury. A review petition is not needed in a “corrective amendment” situation. “Consequential amendments,” on the other hand, do require the claimant to file a review petition to include the new injuries.
Since Fitzgibbons defined the time limitations for both situations, the three-year limitation period is applicable whether the injured worker seeks to obtain relief through the “corrective amendment” or the “consequential” amendment. However, there are instances that do not fit neatly within the Fitzgibbons framework. One such example arose in a case decided by the Commonwealth Court last month, Pizza Hut Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Mahalick) .
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
