Commonwealth Court affirms denial of Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions in COVID-19 workers’ compensation case.

A former police officer’s attempt to reinstate workers’ compensation benefits following a COVID-19 diagnosis was denied by the Commonwealth Court, affirming prior rulings by a workers’ compensation judge and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant alleged his employer unilaterally terminated benefits after initially accepting his claim by providing wage payments in lieu of workers’ compensation. However, the court determined that these payments, designated as “E-Time,” were not an acknowledgment of a work-related injury but, rather, a response to the emergent pandemic, leading to the dismissal of the claimant’s appeal.

In his Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions, the claimant alleged the employer unilaterally terminated benefits in January 2022 after accepting a claim for COVID-19 by paying wages made in lieu of benefits. According to the claimant, in May 2020, while working as a police officer for the employer, he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He told his supervisor that he contracted the virus at work. The employer designated the claimant’s time off from work for COVID, beginning March 19, 2020, as “E-Time,” or “excused time,” and paid him full salary, without depletion of sick or vacation time. The payments continued through March 5, 2022, when the claimant began using accrued sick and vacation time. The claimant did not return to work. On January 31, 2022, the employer filed a Notice of Workers’ Compensation Denial (NCD), denying liability for work-related COVID-19. 

The workers’ compensation judge denied the claimant’s Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions, finding that the payments made under the E-Time designation did not constitute an acknowledgment that the claimant had work-related COVID-19. The claimant appealed the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed. 

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that his benefits should have been reinstated and that it was an error for the judge and the Board not to do so. The court, however, disagreed and dismissed the claimant’s appeal. According to the court, the judge found the testimony of the employer’s witnesses credible as to the E-Time being intended to respond to the emergent pandemic in 2020, without regard to whether the disability was work-related. According to the court, the intent of the payment, not the receipt of them, is the dispositive issue for payments made in lieu of workers’ compensation. In this case, the testimony established that the employer’s objective was to pay all employees out of work due to COVID-19, regardless of cause, in order to protect other employees and citizens from exposure.  

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}