Cozzone v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
41 A.3d 105
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant sustained a severe back injury on January 24, 1989, and his employer accepted the injury via a Notice of Compensation Payable on February 6, 1989.
- Claimant initially received total disability benefits, then returned to his pre-injury job with no earnings loss on September 20, 1989.
- Supplemental agreements reinstated benefits in 2003 and 2005; a suspension occurred on August 29, 2005.
- Further supplemental agreements dated July 31, 2007 reinstated benefits as of June 20, 2007, with a January 7, 2008 modification reducing benefits to partial disability and a light-duty period with another employer.
- Claimant began seeking reinstatement of total disability on September 26, 2008 and filed a penalty petition on February 25, 2009; the WCJ granted reinstatement and penalties, which the Board reversed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the 500-week statute of repose (Section 413(a)) extinguished his right to benefits before the 2008 petitions, and that equitable estoppel did not apply; penalties were also denied because a void supplemental agreement could not resurrect the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel bars the statute of repose defense. | Cozzone argues Employer’s conduct lulled him and warrants estoppel. | Employer contends no estoppel because actions after the repose period cannot revive rights. | Equitable estoppel does not apply. |
| Whether the reinstatement petition was timely under the 500-week repose. | Cozzone filed within three years of last payment and argues timing should survive. | Repose expired around 1999; filing in 2008 is untimely. | Petition time-barred by the 500-week repose. |
| Whether the three-year limitation in Section 413(a) salvages the petition after repose. | Three-year limit should extend filing window post-last payment. | Three-year limit does not apply to reinstatements after suspensions. | Three-year limit inapplicable; repose governs. |
| Whether penalties for unilateral cessation of partial disability benefits can be awarded. | Employer violated the Act by ceasing payments. | Sharon Steel voids a post-repose supplemental agreement; no past due benefits exist. | No penalties awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopresti v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Taylor Wharton Company), 692 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (statute of repose and estoppel framework for reinstatement petitions)
- Cicchiello v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Frank L. Markel Corporation), 761 A.2d 210 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (distinction between repose and three-year limitation; applicability to suspensions)
- Stewart v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pa. Glass Sand/US Silica and INA/CIGNA WCC), 562 Pa. 401 (2000) (interpretation of Section 413(a) final sentence and repose vs. limits)
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Myers), 670 A.2d 1194 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (equitable estoppel in the repose context; inducement and justifiable reliance)
- Roussos v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (St. Vincent Health Center), 630 A.2d 556 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993) (three-year limitation inapplicable where there has been a suspension; estoppel considerations)
- Bellows v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Shabloski), 663 A.2d 267 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (when repose begins running on reinstatement petitions after no compensation is paid)