Date range

Board allows the employer to reimburse the Fund more than it was seeking after a decision granting the termination petition. In return, the employer is given a credit against the claimant's remaining entitlement to partial disability benefits.

The claimant had a compensable work injury and was receiving $330.78 per week compensation for total disability.  On February 12, 2015, the employer filed a termination petition alleging the claimant was no longer totally disabled.  As o Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016

Use of the 5th and 6th Editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is unconstitutional. IREs performed under Section 306(a.2) of the Act must use the 4th Edition of the AMA Guides.

The employer’s physician performing the IRE used the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Guides), the most recent version at the time. Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016

A company whose main business is the sale of franchises to franchisees is not a statutory employer under the Act and is not responsible to pay workers’ compensation benefits.

The court’s analysis of the agreement between the Franchisor and the Franchisee (the employer) showed that the Franchisor’s main business was the sale of franchises to franchisees that desired to use their name, “system” an Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016

The claimant cannot seek a reinstatement of benefits where the injury is acknowledged by a medical only NCP because the Medical Only NCP does not recognize disability.

According to the Commonwealth Court, the effect of issuing a Medical Only NCP is distinct from the effect of a ruling that a claimant has suffered a loss of earning power and that grants a claim petition, but also immediately suspends benefits. Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016

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 d   Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2015