Commonwealth Court holds that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board exceeded its statutory authority in ordering an employer to contribute to the cost of a new home purchased by the claimant.

The claimant, a construction worker, fell off of a roof, resulting in his becoming a paraplegic. At the time of the injury, the claimant lived at his brother’s row house, where the bedroom and bathroom were on the second floor. An estimate of renovations was performed, and it was determined it would cost approximately $120,000 to modify the home with construction of a first floor addition, including a new bedroom and bathroom. The modifications were never performed as the claimant purchased a new, one-story home for $230,000, which required modification of the bathroom. The employer paid for this modification.

The employer filed a petition to review medical treatment and/or billing, taking the position that the purchase of a new home was not a reimbursable medical expense. The claimant maintained that the new home eliminated the need for the entire renovation cost of his brother’s home. The Workers’ Compensation Judge held that the employer was not responsible to reimburse the claimant for the purchase of the new home or for the estimated cost to renovate his prior home. But the judge did order the employer to reimburse the claimant his closing costs since the home purchase relieved the employer of the obligation to pay for the modifications to his prior home. Both parties appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.

The Board reversed the judge and ordered the employer to contribute to the claimant’s purchase of the new, one-story home by applying the $120,000 in costs of the proposed modifications to the home where the claimant was living at the time of injury. The employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court noted that, under Section 306 (f.1)(1)(ii) of the Act, the term “orthopedic appliances” has been interpreted to cover the acquisition of vehicles and home modifications where necessary to allow a claimant to use orthopedic appliances and prostheses. The court held that the purchase of a new home extends the phrase “orthopedic appliances” in Section 306 beyond a reasonable construction. The court reversed the Board. The court noted that there was no precedent under the Act to establish that an employer can be held liable to purchase an entire house for a claimant or to pay for modifications never undertaken.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No. 9, September 2022 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 © 2022 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.}