Cozzone v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
621 Pa. 23
| Pa. | 2013Background
- In 1989, the claimant sustained serious back injuries at work and began total disability benefits.
- He returned to work with no earnings loss, ending the initial benefit in 1989 and triggering a 500-week period for partial disability.
- Over time, multiple supplemental agreements reinstated total and then partial disability benefits (2003, 2005, 2007, 2008).
- On September 26, 2008, he filed a reinstatement petition to restore total disability status effective January 24, 2008.
- The Commonwealth Court held the petition untimely under the 500-week repose and did not apply the three-year proviso, leading to affirmance of dismissal.
- The Supreme Court granted review to examine whether Section 413(a) contemplates concurrent application of the three-year and 500-week provisions and the effect of post-suspension payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 413(a) allows post-suspension reinstatement petitions within three years of the last payment. | Cozzone argues three-year window applies despite 500-week suspension. | Township argues 500-week repose bars post-suspension claims; three-year window not stackable. | The provisions are read concurrently; petition timely or not depends on combined timing. |
| Whether a supplemental agreement paying post-500 weeks resurrects an expired right to benefits. | Cozzone contends supplemental agreements can resurrect rights after expiration. | Township asserts once rights expire, supplemental agreements cannot resurrect them. | Supplemental agreements cannot resurrect an expired statutory right; petition remains barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. WCAB (PA Glass Sand/US Silica), 562 Pa. 401 (Pa. 2000) (discusses interplay of 413(a) provisions and policy concerns about suspension vs. non-suspension cases)
- USX Corp. v. WCAB, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 54 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1990) (3-year limit not applicable where there has been a suspension; sets framework for concurrent reading)
- Stehr v. WCAB (Alcoa), 936 A.2d 570 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (post-500-week claims depend on whether benefits were in suspension)
- Palaschak v. WCAB (U.S. Airways), 35 A.3d 1242 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc discussion of Stanek/Stewart and reliance on 413(a) as controlling statute)
- Edgewater Steel Co. v. WCAB (Beers), 719 A.2d 812 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (early Commonwealth Court case interpreting 413(a) in suspension context)
- Roussos v. WCAB (St. Vincent Health Center), 157 Pa.Cmwlth. 584 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (mutually exclusive timing readings debated in 413(a) context)
- Deppenbrook v. WCAB (Republic Steel Corp.), 655 A.2d 1072 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (part of Commonwealth Court line on 413(a) timing)