C. Bundschuh v. Gwynedd Veterinary Hospital, Inc. (WCAB), 556 C.D. 2021

Background

Claimant suffered a compensable lumbar strain at work on March 9, 2004; Employer paid total disability benefits beginning March 10, 2004.
An October 13, 2009 IRE under former Section 306(a.2) rated Claimant at 7% WBI; Employer converted benefits from total to partial, and Claimant received partial benefits for the 500‑week statutory period (expired May 2019).
Claimant petitioned for reinstatement of total benefits and Judge Stokes reinstated total benefits effective June 4, 2019 (relying on Protz II principles regarding prior IRE invalidation).
Employer obtained a September 30, 2019 IRE under Act 111 (Section 306(a.3)), which rated Claimant 2% WBI, and petitioned to suspend benefits while claiming credit for previously paid weeks of total and partial disability under Section 3 of Act 111.
The WCJ granted Employer’s suspension petition; the Board affirmed; Claimant appealed to this Court arguing Act 111’s IRE provisions and crediting of pre‑effective‑date weeks were impermissibly retroactive and impaired Claimant’s vested rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 111’s IRE and credit provisions may be applied based on weeks of compensation paid before Oct. 24, 2018	Bundschuh: Statutes are presumptively prospective; Act 111 lacks expressly retroactive language per Statutory Construction Act and Legislative Drafting Manual, so pre‑effective‑date weeks should not trigger IREs or credits	Employer: Section 3(1)–(2) of Act 111 expressly gives employers credit for weeks paid prior to the effective date; legislature manifested intent to apply those credits	Court: Section 3’s language evidences clear legislative intent to give credit for prior weeks; Act 111 properly applied and WCJ correctly suspended benefits
Whether application of Act 111 here violated Claimant’s vested rights	Bundschuh: She had a vested right to continued benefits and Act 111 unlawfully impaired it retroactively	Employer: Benefits under the Act are subject to modification under Section 413; claimants retain reasonable expectations but not absolute immunity from statutory change	Court: No violation — claimants’ benefits remain subject to modification and Pierson/Rose controls that credits may apply
Whether Employer had to pay a new 104‑week period after Claimant’s June 4, 2019 reinstatement before requesting an IRE	Bundschuh: Employer needed to pay 104 weeks following reinstatement before triggering a new IRE	Employer: The statutory 104‑week threshold may include weeks paid before Act 111 given Section 3 credit	Court: No additional 104‑week wait required; prior weeks count toward the 104‑week threshold

Key Cases Cited

Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (held former Section 306(a.2) unconstitutional for delegating to the AMA Guides in an improper manner)
Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017) (Supreme Court affirmed Commonwealth Court and struck down Section 306(a.2))
Rose Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Espada), 238 A.3d 551 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (construed Section 3 of Act 111 to give employers credit for pre‑effective‑date weeks)
Pierson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Consol Pa. Coal Co. LLC), 252 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (upheld Act 111’s constitutionality and recognized Section 3’s retroactive crediting)
Bible v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 696 A.2d 1149 (Pa. 1997) (retroactive application of statutes requires clear legislative direction)
Pennsylvania AFL‑CIO v. Commonwealth, 219 A.3d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (addressed constitutional challenges to Act 111 provisions)