Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania v. WCAB (Maratea)
430 C.D. 2017
Pa. Commw. Ct.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Claimant, a senior accountant, received a February 2010 medical-only NTCP for a right wrist/right shoulder strain from repetitive computer use; the NTCP converted to an NCP in July 2010.
- Employer issued a December 2010 "corrected" NCP listing only right wrist strain/tendonitis (removing the shoulder), and Claimant stopped working March 23, 2011; supplemental agreement recognized wrist injury and wage benefits.
- Employer filed a termination petition in October 2012; a WCJ granted termination in November 2014 relying on the "corrected" NCP (wrist only).
- The Board reversed on October 28, 2015, finding the original NTCP (including shoulder) operative and reinstating benefits; Employer’s supersedeas request was denied but Employer ceased wage payments anyway.
- Claimant filed penalty petitions after Employer failed to pay; the WCJ imposed a 50% penalty plus interest for unpaid wage-loss benefits accrued after October 28, 2015; the Board affirmed and this Court likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hospital) | Defendant's Argument (Maratea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer could stop wage payments while appeal pending without supersedeas | Employer: payments not owed because wrist benefits ultimately terminated by this Court | Claimant: Employer obligated to pay while appeal pending absent granted supersedeas or other authority | Court: Employer must pay during appeal unless supersedeas granted; failure justified 50% penalty |
| Whether WCJ abused discretion in imposing 50% penalty | Employer: penalty improper because underlying wages were not ultimately owed | Claimant: penalty appropriate for unreasonable/unpaid benefits after supersedeas denial | Court: No abuse of discretion; 50% penalty appropriate given length/unreasonableness of delay |
| Whether filing supersedeas request excuses non-payment | Employer: mere filing should suffice to avoid penalty | Claimant: filing without grant does not stay payment obligation | Court: Mere filing does not suspend payment; denial requires continued payment |
| Effect of Board and appellate rulings on employer’s payment obligation | Employer: appellate outcome shows payments were not ultimately due | Claimant: prevailing on appeal does not retroactively excuse non-payment during litigation | Court: Employer’s eventual success on merits does not excuse non-payment while litigation was pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Essroc Materials v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Braho), 741 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (penalty assessment is discretionary; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McLaughlin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (St. Francis Country House), 808 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (employer must continue payments while challenging entitlement absent supersedeas)
- Graves v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (LaFrance Corporation), 680 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (employer’s ultimate success does not excuse non-payment during litigation)
- North Pittsburgh Drywall Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Owen), 59 A.3d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (summary of employer obligations to continue benefit payments while appeal pending)
- Indiana Floral Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Brown), 793 A.2d 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (50% penalty appropriate for several months of nonpayment after supersedeas denial)
- Lehigh County Vo–Tech School v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wolfe), 652 A.2d 797 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (appellate scope and standards)