City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 340
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant was injured in 1995 while employed as a probation officer; treatment concluded with full recovery in October 1995; NCP issued November 7, 1995 recognizing injury and liability but not a specific disability start date; WCJ found Claimant fully recovered as of October 20, 1995 and suspended benefits with an October 31, 1995 desk job offer and a September 25, 1997 suspension date; Board vacated the suspension as it relied on the NCP date rather than ongoing recovery; this Court previously vacated in 2010 and reinstated the WCJ’s suspension with a revised effective date; on reconsideration, the Court held that substantiating evidence of recovery after the NCP date is sufficient to suspend or terminate benefits and remanded for further consideration of remaining arguments; the current decision affirms the penalty ruling and remands for Board to address other suspension issues raised by Claimant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCP date prevents suspension/termination | Butler I held NCP date precludes suspension if recovery occurred before NCP. | Employer proved recovery occurred after the NCP date; NCP date cannot bar suspension. | NCP date does not preclude suspension/termination prior to its filing date. |
| Whether Employer proved Claimant recovered after NCP | Claimant was fully recovered before NCP, per Beissel line of cases. | Medical evidence shows recovery after NCP; employer met burden. | Employer proved recovery from the listed injury after the NCP. |
| Beissel framework applicability | Beissel requires change after the NCP and supports Beissel’s rule. | Beissel is not controlling; facts show post-NCP recovery is sufficient. | Beissel governs; employer cannot repudiate its NCP by relying on pre-NCP recovery, but here evidence supports post-NCP recovery. |
| Board remediation of remaining suspension arguments | Board did not address all suspension issues raised by Claimant. | Board’s preclusion ruling resolved the central issue.; remaining arguments are remanded. | Remand to Board to address unresolved suspension merits consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beissel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 (Pa. 1983) (employer bound by contents of its NCP; must show change after NCP to terminate/modify benefits)
- Central Park Lodge v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), 718 A.2d 368 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (termination only if fully recovered for all injuries listed in the NCP)
- Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240 (Pa. 1987) (suspension appropriate where claimant can work; evidence of ongoing need for medical treatment)
- Beissel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 (Pa. 1983) (see above; foundational Beissel principles cited in analysis)
- Vista International Hotel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Daniels), 560 Pa. 12 (Pa. 1999) (recognizes authority to terminate/suspend based on recovery and job availability)