Krushauskas v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 291
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant sustained a work-related right shoulder injury on September 7, 2005, while employed by GM and began receiving benefits on September 14, 2005.
- In May 2006 Claimant signed the GM-UAW Special Attrition Plan with a $35,000 lump sum, releasing claims including disability pay, though Claimant asserted he did not intend to retire.
- Employer relayed that Claimant signed Form A and Form B of the Attrition Plan in May 2006, indicating voluntary separation and non-duress; Claimant did not revoke acceptance.
- The WCJ found Employer violated the Act by suspending benefits on July 1, 2006 without a supplemental agreement or order, but denied penalties because no past due compensation was unpaid.
- The WCJ held that Claimant voluntarily retired and thus his benefits were suspended retroactively to July 1, 2006; no reinstatement or penalties were awarded.
- Board affirmed the WCJ’s denial of penalties and suspension based on Claimant’s voluntary retirement; Claimant sought review arguing lack of petition and mischaracterization of retirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to suspend without petition | Krushauskas argues WCJ lacked authority to suspend without a petition. | GM argues the WCJ could suspend under notice and evidence, treating penalty defense as suspension. | WCJ had authority to suspend under notice and evidence presented. |
| Validity of suspension given voluntary retirement | Krushauskas contends retirement was not established as voluntary and benefits should continue. | GM asserts Claimant voluntarily retired by accepting the Attrition Plan and pension. | Claimant’s voluntary retirement supported suspension of benefits. |
| Penalties for illegal suspension | Krushauskas seeks penalties for unlawful offset and suspension. | GM argues penalties not available because no past due compensation remained due due to retirement. | No penalties awarded because no unpaid past compensation existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutter v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pittsburgh Aluminum Co.), 665 A.2d 554 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (addressed authority to terminate without a formal petition)
- Frontini v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Parks Moving & Storage), 702 A.2d 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (notice and timing allowed termination without petition in set-aside context)
- Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 4 A.3d 1130 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (retirement presumption; burden shifts to claimant to show seeking work or injury forced retirement)
- Coover v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 347 (Pa.Cmwlth.1991) (precedent on suspension context when record not closed)
- Boehm v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 576 A.2d 1163 (Pa.Cmwlth.1990) (early discussion of procedural posture in penalties/suspension)
- Frontini (additional reference), 702 A.2d 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (see above)