C. Byfield v. WCAB (Philadelphia Housing Authority), 143 A.3d 1063

Background

In Aug. 2010 Byfield (Claimant) suffered work-related spinal strains/sprains and a right wrist contusion; Employer (Philadelphia Housing Authority) issued a notice of compensation payable.
Employer filed a suspension petition (effective Jan. 31, 2011) under §306(f.1)(8), alleging Claimant refused reasonable medical treatment (lumbar facet injections). Claimant denied refusal and said he was treated by company doctors and working light duty.
WCJ found injections were reasonable/necessary, credited medical testimony, granted Employer’s suspension petition and suspended benefits as of Jan. 31, 2011.
The Board reversed the WCJ, finding Employer failed to prove Claimant refused treatment; the Board did not address Claimant’s request for costs and attorney’s fees. No party appealed that Board order within the appeal period.
Claimant later filed a separate review petition under §413 seeking recovery of litigation costs and attorney’s fees for defending the suspension petition. A different WCJ dismissed it as improper relief; the Board affirmed, holding the review petition barred because Claimant should have sought rehearing or appealed the original Board order and thus was collaterally estopped.
On appeal to this Court, the issue was whether Claimant could use §413 review to obtain fees after failing to seek rehearing or timely appeal, and whether he had standing to challenge the Board’s failure to award fees.

Issues

Issue	Byfield's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether §413 review petition was a proper vehicle to obtain attorney’s fees/costs after the Board’s omission	§413 permits a WCJ to correct mechanical errors and the Board’s failure to award fees was a mechanical error correctable by review	The omission was a merits issue (not mechanical); §413 cannot be used to litigate merits or create an award Claimant never had	Held: §413 does not permit correction here; lack of fee award goes to merits, not a mechanical error, so review petition was improper
Whether Claimant had standing to appeal the Board’s order despite prevailing on the suspension petition	He lacked standing because he prevailed on the main issue so was not "aggrieved"	Claimant was partially aggrieved because the Board failed to address his request for fees — he did not obtain all requested relief	Held: Claimant had standing to appeal the Board’s order (he was aggrieved as to the omitted fees), but he failed to timely seek rehearing or appeal, so the omission is final
Whether an award of attorney’s fees is automatic for prevailing claimants	Byfield implied award is required after prevailing	Employer emphasized fee awards are discretionary and not automatic; reasonableness of contest is a separate legal determination	Held: Fee awards are not automatic; employer’s contest may be reasonable and bar fees; Board’s failure to award is a merits determination
Whether collateral estoppel barred Claimant’s later review petition	Byfield argued Drozd allowed correction of Board omissions via §413	Employer/Board argued Claimant’s remedy was rehearing or appeal; failure to pursue those bars collateral attack by §413 petition	Held: Court did not decide collateral estoppel application but affirmed that Claimant’s §413 petition was improper because he failed to seek rehearing or timely appeal; final Board order stands

Key Cases Cited

PMA Insurance Group v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kelley), 665 A.2d 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (elements for collateral estoppel in workers’ compensation context)
Milner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Main Line Endoscopy Center), 995 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review of WCAB decisions)
Wood v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Country Care Private Nursing), 915 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (prevailing claimant may recover fees unless employer had reasonable basis to contest)
Drozd v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (The Lion, Inc.), 485 A.2d 96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (§413 may correct mechanical/statutory computation errors in awards)
Mason v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 600 A.2d 241 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (fee award not automatic; reasonableness of employer’s contest is objective)
Chiro-Med Review Co. v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 908 A.2d 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (prevailing party may appeal when remedy awarded is insufficient)
Robb v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Public Welfare), 718 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (party can appeal despite prevailing if WCJ’s order denied meaningful relief)
Almeida v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Herman Goldner Co.), 844 A.2d 642 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (general rule that prevailing party is not aggrieved and lacks standing)