What Does Supersedeas Mean In A Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Case?

Supersedeas is the employer or insurer’s request to reduce or eliminate indemnity (wage loss) benefits based on an allegation of a full recovery or an earning power. The request is made in the Petition to Terminate, Suspend, or Modify. The injured worker is allowed to rebut the request for Supersedeas. If you are an injured worker and do not have an experienced PA Work Injury Lawyer, you should contact me right away. Winning the Supersedeas is critical because if it is Granted- ie, if the Judge grants Supersedeas, that means your checks will be reduced or eliminated based on the evidence presented at the first hearing. If Supersedeas is Denied, then the insurer has to keep paying at the rate there were paying before the petition was filed.

Supersedeas under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law will not affect your medical benefits. Supersedeas only affects the wage loss portion of a Pennsylvania Work Comp case.

Litigation in a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation case can take up to a year or more. The Supersedeas Decision from a Work Comp Judge will happen soon after the initial hearing. Winning Supersedeas is really important and should not be taken lightly. The Supersedeas Decision from the PA Work Comp Judge is an Interlocutory Order– this means it is not subject to appeal like a final order on the merits of a case.

If a Petition to Terminate, Suspend, or Modify has been filed against you, call or email me for a quick and free consult. Your odds are defeating the workers’ compensation carrier are increased greatly if you have a certified work comp specialist working on your behalf.

For more info about Pennsylvania Work Comp Supersedeas or for a free consult, call Attorney Michael Cardamone at 215-206-9068 or email MyPhillyWorkersComp@Gmail.com

Representing Injured Workers Across Pennsylvania

The Cardamone Law Firm, LLC

The Firm For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania

Under The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law, Can I Still Pursue Workers’ Compensation Benefits If I Aggravated A Preexisting Injury While Working?

YES! It is a myth that an injured worker, who may have hurt her back in the past, cannot pursue workers’ compensation as a result of aggravating her back while working. I frequently talk with people who believe they cannot pursue PA Work Comp benefits because they had pain in the same body part before their work activities. It is simply not true. You can and should pursue benefits if your work activities aggravated your condition.

Under Section 301 (c) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, the term “injury” and “personal injury” is defined as “an injury to an employee, regardless of his previous condition, arising in the course and scope of his employment and related thereto, and such disease or infection as naturally results from the injury or is aggravated, reactivated or accelerated by the injury….”

As you can see from the plain, clear language of the PA Work Comp Law, it doesn’t matter if an injured worker had a preexisting condition, so long as you can demonstrate that the condition was aggravated, reactivated, or accelerated by the work activity. However, you can rest assured that the insurance carrier’s attorney, and the doctors hired by the insurance carrier, will do everything they can to pin the current set of symptoms on the preexisting condition versus the work activities. Generally speaking, the longer the gap in treatment from the prior injury until the work-related injury, the better the case. On the other hand, if the injured worker was treating up until the work incident, it is a much tougher case to pin liability on the work activities, naturally. It is simply imperative for injured workers, in this context, to tell his or her attorney and treating physicians as much detail as possible as to 1) when they last treated, 2) what doctors they treated with before the work incident, 3) what type of treatment they had, 4) what symptoms, if any, are now different in location or extent versus pre-work injury, and 5) what specific work activities triggered the symptoms. Doing your homework before the first hearing is absolutely critical so that you know what you’re dealing with, before cross examination commences.

While the history is always important in a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation case, its importance is heightened in cases involving a claim of an aggravation of a preexisting condition. A careful review of the prior medical records will help determine the viability of the workers’ compensation claim. The family doctor’s records, especially, can be instructive as they often document the initial onset of symptoms and tell us which doctors were involved in the treatment. Similarly, make sure to read the current medical records to see if the doctor has addressed the issue- ie, did the work activities aggravate, accelerate, or reactivate a prior condition within a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

If you aggravated a preexisting medical condition as a result of your work activities, whether suddenly, or from repetitive work activities over a course of time, call Certified Pennsylvania Work Injury Attorney and Specialist, Michael W. Cardamone at 215-206-9068 for a free consult or email MyPhillyWorkersComp@Gmail.com 7 Days A Week.

PA Work Injury Attorney

The Cardamone Law Firm

The Firm For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania

Does An Employer In Pennsylvania Have To Show Job Availability For A Suspension of Workers’ Compensation Benefits When A Claimant Has Non-Work-Related Injuries That Are Totally Disabling?

No. Pursuant to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Decision in Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cunningham), No. 2045 C.D. 2011. Claimant suffered a work-related injury to his right knee as a mechanic in June 1996- the Employer, after temporarily accepting his claim, then denied it. Claimant filed a Claim Petition. He returned to his pre-injury job shortly after the work accident. But in July 1996, Claimant was involved in a non-work-related car accident, injuring his left knee, low back, and left hand. He went out of work as a result. He had surgery for the work-related knee injury (right) in 1997 and returned to his pre-injury light duty position in April 1997. In December 1998, in a second non-work-related accident, Claimant was struck by a vehicle and hurt his left knee, low back, left hand, and left shoulder. He then stopped working and received sickness and accident benefits. He unsuccessfully tried returning to work in late December 1998 and has been out of work since.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the Claim Petition and awarded total disability benefits for the periods in which Claimant was disabled from the June 1996 work injury and ongoing (to the extent he wasn’t already compensated). In August 2006, Employer filed a Petition to Modify and/or Suspend alleging that as of April 12, 2006, Claimant failed to respond in good faith to job offers referred to him within his physical and vocational abilities. During the litigation, Employer filed a second Petition to Modify/Suspend alleging Claimant was able to return to work as of November 9, 2005, but for his December 1998 non-work-related injuries. Employed deposed Dr. Joseph Bernstein, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who opined that Claimant’s right knee had recovered sufficiently that Claimant was capable of performing sedentary work as of November 9, 2005 and that the only cause of Claimant’s continuing disability was the non-work-related December 1998 accident. Employer also presented the testimony of Michael Smychynsky, a vocational consultant, forensic economist, and certified rehabilitation counselor who interviewed Claimant and found jobs that he alleged were available to Claimant with wages of up to $400 per week. Claimant presented the testimony of Dr. Ronald Greene who concluded that Claimant was not capable of returning to work due to the condition of his right knee. The WCJ found that Dr. Bernstein’s testimony was more credible, granting Employer’s Modification Petition and reducing Claimant’s benefits for April 12, 2006 to January 26, 2007, and suspending his benefits as of January 26, 2007 as Claimant’s non-work-related injuries rendered him incapable of all possible work activity.

Claimant appealed and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ’s Decision to modify Claimant’s benefits, concluding that Claimant waived the argument. But the Board agreed with the Claimant that the WCJ erred in suspending Claimant’s benefits because Employer failed to establish the availability of a job equal to or greater than Claimant’s pre-injury average weekly wage of $825.91 and thus reversed that portion of the WCJ’s Decision. On appeal, the Employer argued that the is not required to demonstrate job availability given that Claimant’s non-work-related injuries are totally disabling.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Court agreed with Employer’s argument. They first cited Section 413 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and the Kachinski case in which our Supreme Court interpreted that section to mean that the employer who seeks to modify a claimant’s benefits must first produce evidence of a change in condition, then the employer must produce evidence of a referral to a then open job (or jobs) which fits in the occupational category for which the claimant has been given medical clearance, then the burden shifts to claimant to demonstrate that he has in good faith followed through on the job referral(s) and if the referral fails to result in a job then claimant’s benefits should continue.

The Commonwealth Court looked to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Schneider, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bey), 560 Pa. 608, 747 A.2d 845 (2000), where the Court held that the employer was not required to show job availability where the claimant was totally disabled by non-work-related conditions. While the injuries in Schneider were more severe, the Employer was successful in showing that the facts were similar and that Schneider applies.

This holding contradicts the spirit of Kachinski. It is not a favorable ruling for injured workers in Pennsylvania. Employers should have to show job availability but Schneider and the instant case are making it easier for employers to modify or suspend claimants’ benefits by lowering the burden of proof required to suspend an injured worker’s benefits in similar circumstances.

Contact Pennsylvania Work Comp Attorney Michael W. Cardamone for a Free Consult 7 Days A Week. 215-206-9068; MyPhillyWorkersComp@Gmail.com; 100% for Injured Workers

The Cardamone Law Firm

The Firm For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania