Fields v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
104 A.3d 79
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Jacqueline Fields, a prison guard, was injured in 2003 and ultimately found to have specific permanent losses of her left arm and both legs, producing 3 awards of 410 weeks each (aggregate 1,230 weeks) plus healing periods.
- The City initially paid specific-loss benefits concurrently (weekly checks aggregating three awards) but in Feb 2010 reduced payments to the temporary total-disability rate and then paid single-weekly installments thereafter.
- Claimant filed a petition seeking medical-related services and penalties for unilateral payment reduction; WCJ Baldys granted the medical review (without specific cost awards for lack of invoices) and denied penalties.
- WCJ Baldys held that multiple specific-loss awards arising from the same injury must be paid consecutively (aggregated under Section 306(c)(21)), not concurrently, and ordered consecutive weekly payments totaling the statutory weeks.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board split 3–3 and issued a per curiam affirmance; this Court affirms, holding consecutive payment required by Section 306(c)(21) and rejecting Claimant’s request for concurrent payments as effectively an unauthorized acceleration/commutation.
Issues
| Issue | Fields' Argument | City of Philadelphia's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple specific-loss awards from the same injury may be paid concurrently to maximize weekly income | Concurrent payment should be allowed (or Board should use discretion under §306(c)(23)) so claimant receives higher weekly benefits earlier | Specific-loss awards arising from same injury must be aggregated and paid consecutively under §306(c)(21); Turner does not authorize concurrent payment | Held: Payments must be made consecutively; concurrent payment not authorized by statute or Turner |
| Whether the Board’s §306(c)(23) discretion permits ordering concurrent specific-loss payments instead of total disability | Turner allows Board discretion to select the most advantageous schedule, including selecting specific-loss over total-disability | Turner’s discretion does not extend to reordering §306(c)(21) consecutive schedule into concurrent payments; that would be an impermissible acceleration/commutation | Held: Board discretion under §306(c)(23) does not authorize concurrent payment of multiple specific losses arising from same injury |
| Whether City violated the Act by reducing payments (penalty claim) | Claimant argues unilateral reduction violated Act | City contends reduction reflected correct application of law (paying TTD instead of concurrent SL) | Held: WCJ and Board denial of penalty affirmed; no violation proven |
| Whether relief sought (accelerated higher weekly payments) is an acceptable alternative to commutation petition | Fields argues humanitarian/financial reasons justify concurrent payments without formal commutation | City argues concurrent payment is effectively commutation/acceleration and must follow statutory commutation procedure | Held: Court rejects back-door commutation; claimant must use commutation process for accelerated payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 389 A.2d 42 (Pa. 1978) (Board discretion to select specific-loss over total-disability in some cases)
- Christopher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Consolidation Coal Co.), 793 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (Act’s income-maintenance purpose favors long-term periodic payments; commutation disfavored)
- Bush v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Swatara Coal Co.), 802 A.2d 679 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (commutation provisions narrowly construed to preserve income maintenance)
- Symons v. National Electric Products, Inc., 200 A.2d 871 (Pa. 1964) (Board has discretion whether statutory presumption of total disability applies for bilateral losses)
- Allegheny Power Serv. Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cockroft), 954 A.2d 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (Board may determine claimant is totally disabled despite earning capacity)
- Faulkner Cadillac v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tinari), 831 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (concurrent awards may apply where injuries are separate and unrelated)