Commonwealth Dept. of Transportation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
80 A.3d 525
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant sustained a 1995 left shoulder injury; an agreement provided five weeks of total disability then suspension.
- Claimant’s average weekly wage at injury was $863.84, yielding TD rate of $509; Claimant worked restricted but was later discharged in 1997 and reinstated in a lower-paying job.
- A 1999 recurrence led to a supplemental agreement paying $433.50 weekly TD; Claimant returned to modified duty August 1999 to June 2000, then work within restrictions ended; TD benefits were reinstated June 3, 2000.
- WCJ ordered $509 weekly benefits as of June 3, 2000 and directed 20% quantum meruit fees payable to Claimant’s counsel; subsequent petitions and appeals followed with no further quantum meruit exhibit.
- In 2004–2006 Employer pursued what it believed were changes in eligibility; WCJ denied modification and found no unreasonable contest; Board later held Claimant overpaid and Dollar Tree not controlling.
- In 2010 Employer sought recoupment of a $30,540 overpayment; the WCJ denied recoupment and quantum meruit; Board reversed on overpayment and denied recoupment based on lack of mistaken belief; this Court reverses some aspects and remands for a just, manageable credit amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an overpayment occurred | Noll contends there was no overpayment since payment matched the WCJ order. | Employer argues a misinterpretation led to overpayments undiminished by counsel fees. | Yes, overpayment occurred due to mistaken interpretation. |
| Whether recoupment is permissible to prevent unjust enrichment | Noll argues recoupment is limited or improper under Dollar Tree. | Employer contends Lucey and Mino authorize recoupment to prevent unjust enrichment. | Recoupment is permitted to prevent unjust enrichment; remanded to determine amount. |
| Whether the Board correctly denied quantum meruit attorney’s fees and deemed contest reasonable | Noll asserts the WCJ correctly awarded quantum meruit; Board erred in denying it. | Employer asserts the contest was reasonable; quantum meruit not payable. | Affirm Board’s denial of quantum meruit; remand on credit amount for recoupment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fahringer, McCarty & Grey, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Green), 529 A.2d 56 (1987) (unjust enrichment and modification of a mistaken agreement allowed)
- Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Reichert), 931 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (recoupment not allowed absent mistaken agreement under Dollar Tree)
- Lucey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Vy-Cal Plastics & PMA Group), 557 Pa. 272 (2000) (restitution for excessive payment when paid under mistaken belief)
- Mino v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Crime Prevention Association), 990 A.2d 832 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (offset against future benefits for mistaken payments under unjust enrichment)
- Ramich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Schatz Electric, Inc.), 564 Pa. 656 (2001) (quantum meruit determined by actual value of attorney work)
- Eugenie v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sheltered Employment Service), 140 Pa.Cmwlth. 51 (1991) (quantum meruit not a windfall; must reflect services performed)