Pennsylvania Supreme Court redefines what constitutes sufficient notice of a work injury.

The claimant in this case, a 45-year employee who worked as an Air Force helmet inspector, left work complaining about intolerable pain in her hands but did not report her condition as work-related. She submitted an application for short-term disability benefits, indicating that she did not believe that her condition was work-related, and attributed it to pre-existing fibromyalgia and high blood pressure. Two months after leaving work, the claimant was diagnosed with work-related tendonitis, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a cartilage tear. She then left voice messages with the human resource manager, at least one of which was that she had unspecified "work-related problems." No medical documentation was submitted to the employer identifying the conditions as work-related. The workers' compensation judge found that the claimant gave timely notice of her injury under Section 311 of the Act and sufficiently described it pursuant to section 312, and the WCAB agreed. The Commonwealth Court reversed as to the sufficiency of the description of the notice under Section 312, finding that the short-term disability application and voice message did not adequately describe a work-related injury. The Supreme Court, in holding that the claimant provided sufficient notice of a work injury, held that a precise description of the work injury is not necessary and that the notice requirement under Section 312 is met when it is conveyed in ordinary language, takes into consideration the context and setting of the injury, and may be provided over a period of time or a series of communications if the exact nature of the injury and its work-relatedness is not immediately known by the claimant. While the Court acknowledged that the claimant's notice in this case was not "letter perfect," it nonetheless stressed that the humanitarian purpose of the Act directs that "a meritorious claim ought not, if possible, be defeated for technical reasons and technicalities." The Court stated that what constitutes sufficient notice is a fact-intensive inquiry taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. The Gentex decision is disconcerting to employers and insurers as it can be viewed as promoting a low threshold for claimants to satisfy the notice requirement of Section 312, as well as seemingly shifting the burden to the employer to identify the occurrence of a work injury where an employee does not specify or offer medical evidence that a medical condition or injury is work-related, and, indeed, provides information to the contrary that the problem is due to a pre-existing condition. Of concern is the Court's suggestion that the mere mention of a "work-related problem" is sufficient to trigger an employer's duty to investigate the circumstances to determine if compensation is due, or face sanctions.

Case Law Alert, 4th Qtr 2011