An IRE that considers a claimant’s work injury as it is defined and exists at the time the IRE is performed is valid notwithstanding an after-the-fact expansion of the injury.

The Commonwealth Court rejected the claimant’s argument that, because he challenged the IRE within the initial 60-day appeal period, he could contest the IRE as being invalid based on the fact that the description used by the IRE physician did not include all of the claimant’s injuries. The court said that they do not believe that the General Assembly intended to nullify an already performed and otherwise valid IRE due to claims of new or additional injuries not yet determined to be work related. The court concluded that an IRE that considers the claimant’s work injury, as it is defined at the time the IRE is performed, is valid notwithstanding the fact that the scope of a claimant’s work-related injury is expanded at a later time.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}