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.
While the Penske case is highly fact-specific, it is not difficult to envision a similar scenario playing out with any injured worker. Appreciating the pitfalls presented in Penske will help the claimant’s practitioner properly advise the injured worker in real time what is necessary in providing legal notice to an employer and, similarly, will offer guidance in presenting weak evidence should the claimant seek representation long after the period for providing legal notice has expired.
This content has been archived.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]
