Hershgordon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
14 A.3d 922
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Hershgordon, employed as a 2nd assistant manager at Pep Boys in Bensalem, alleges a June 13, 2005 work injury.
- Claimant filed a claim petition on November 26, 2007 seeking benefits as of October 23, 2007 and penalties for alleged reporting delay.
- Employer denied the claim, asserting no timely notice, no wage loss, and no medical treatment tied to a compensable injury.
- WCJ decision (January 28, 2009) denied the claim for lack of timely notice and lack of wage loss/medical evidence, and found no wage loss from compensable injury.
- Board affirmed the WCJ on August 4, 2010; Claimant appealed to Commonwealth Court challenging the notice ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of the June 13, 2005 injury was provided within 120 days | Hershgordon argues timely notice was made | Pep Boys contends no timely notice within 120 days | Board affirmed; no timely notice supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Scher v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 740 A.2d 741 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (notice factual question for WCJ; credibility matters)
- Kerr v. Pa. State Bd. of Dentistry, 960 A.2d 427 (2008) (credibility and evidentiary weight reviewed on appeal)
- Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (WCJ as ultimate fact finder; credibility determinations reviewed)
- Dorsey v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (reasoned decision requirement; defer to WCJ credibility findings)
- Lahr Mech. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Floyd), 933 A.2d 1095 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (review of record to determine substantial evidence supporting findings)
- Romaine v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bryn Mawr Chateau Nursing Home), 587 Pa. 471 (2006) (rules about application of civil procedure in workers' comp cases)