Glaze v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
41 A.3d 190
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeals from eight-member Workers’ Compensation Board decisions reviewing December 2008 petitions related to pension offsets for 19 retired firefighters.
- Initial orders directed continued workers’ compensation benefits without pension offset; Board affirmed due to an even split.
- Amended December 23, 2008 orders acknowledged possible offsets for past and future benefits but barred reimbursement for past due offsets to avoid overpayment.
- The court reverses the Board, remanding for a definitive offset determination in line with Harvey and Hensal, using actuarial evidence to show employer-funded portions of pensions.
- Court also asks that the remand consider the Davis decision and related authorities, potentially requiring reimbursement if necessary on remand.
- Claimants’ challenges to reimbursement of offsets previously taken are dismissed as moot in light of remand and definitive determination of offset rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actuarial evidence can prove extent of funding without tying to specific individuals | Employer argues Harvey/Hensal permit actuarial proof without individual contributions | Claimants contend the WCJ correctly required per-claimant data and credibility findings | Remand to determine offset rights consistent with Harvey/Hensal/Davis |
| Whether the WCJ properly rejected other credibility grounds for Employer’s actuarial evidence | Employer asserts other data-source criticisms are admissible and credible | Claimants argue data-source criticisms are insufficient to negate credibility | Remand to reconsider credibility and data sources under controlling precedents |
| Whether past offsets should be reimbursed when not all funding facts were established | Claimants seek reimbursement of offsets previously withheld | Employer argues reimbursement not required without definitive offset extent | Moot; remand controls the ultimate determination of reimbursement obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Public Welfare v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Harvey), 605 Pa. 636 (Pa. 2010) (actuarial evidence may determine employer-funded portion in defined-benefit plans)
- Pennsylvania State University/PMA Ins. Grp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hensal), 911 A.2d 225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (employer need not prove actual contributions to individuals; actuarial method suffices)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Calderazzo), 968 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (board remand appropriate to determine employer’s offset when there is annual funding)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Grevy), 968 A.2d 830 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (remand when employer contributed to pension fund but exact amounts undetermined)
- School District of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Davis), 38 A.3d 992 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (employer may rely on actuarial formula; claimant must show materiality of challenges to data; remand for definitive calculation)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (Andrews), 948 A.2d 221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer bears burden of proving extent funded; need not show exact per-employee contributions)
- Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Workers’ Comp. Ap. Bd. (King), 884 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (Andrews/King emphasize offset principles when funding exists)
- Chalmers v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 636 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (double recovery avoidance principles in offset contexts)