Furnari v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
90 A.3d 53
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant, a corrugated box designer, injured his right knee at work on Oct 10, 2008.
- Employer issued a medical-only NCP on Oct 27, 2008 and paid medical expenses plus full salary.
- Claimant returned to work in a restricted capacity on Nov 24, 2008; Employer modified duties but kept full salary.
- Claimant resigned on Apr 3, 2009; Employer stopped salary payments after resignation.
- Claimant filed a Reinstatement Petition on Sept 25, 2009 seeking temporary total disability; Board ultimately affirmed WCJ’s denial, but on a different burden of proof.
- WCJ denied reinstatement in Aug 2011, Board affirmed, then this Court granted review; issue centers on burden of proof and whether salary continuation created a de facto NCP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for reinstatement vs. claim petition | Furnari argues WCJ/Board applied wrong burden (claim petition). | Temple Inland contends correct burden was applied. | Board erred by applying claim-petition burden; reinstatement burden applied. |
| Whether salary continuation created a de facto NCP and affected rights to wage loss | Claimant says salary continuation equates to NCP; entitlement to wage loss benefits survives. | Employer argues salary continuation is not an NCP; no loss of earnings established. | WCJ/Board erred in treating salary continuation as de facto NCP; but harmless since claimant failed to prove worsened disability under either standard. |
| Worsening of condition evidence supporting non-disability as of April 2009 | Claimant contends condition worsened and prevented modified work. | Employer argues no credible evidence of worsening; accommodations remained. | Substantial evidence supports no worsening; resignation was for rehabilitation, not injury progression. |
| Availability of suitable light-duty work as of April 2009 | Claimant claims no suitable work within restrictions existed. | Employer created and accommodated a modified job per restrictions. | There was substantial evidence that available light-duty work existed and was tailored to claimant’s restrictions. |
| Duration of the light-duty position (whether temporary) | No definite end date shown for modified job; no error in not specifying a limited duration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (EZ Payroll & Staffing Solutions), 63 A.3d 843 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (disability means loss of earning power; reinstatement burden)
- Ward v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 966 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (disability—reinstatement burden standard)
- Krushauskas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Gen. Motors), 56 A.3d 64 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (notice and suspension mechanics for wage benefits; judicial discretion to suspend without petition)
- Presby Homes & Servs. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Quiah), 982 A.2d 1261 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (suitability of available work; tailored job offers and good faith return-to-work efforts)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Myers), 578 Pa. 94, 849 A.2d 1166 (2004) (standards for evaluating medical evidence and vocational capability)