Logue v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
119 A.3d 1116
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Claimant (William Logue) suffered a work-related right wrist injury in 2002 and has received total disability benefits since then.
- In 2012 Employer requested the Bureau designate a physician to perform an impairment rating evaluation (IRE); the Bureau designated Dr. Yutong Zhang.
- Claimant objected, contending Employer must first attempt to agree with Claimant on an IRE physician, and refused to attend the examination.
- Employer filed a petition to compel the examination; the WCJ ordered Claimant to attend the IRE or face suspension/termination of benefits; the Board affirmed.
- Claimant appealed, arguing Section 306(a.2)(1) requires Employer to seek Claimant’s agreement on physician selection before asking the Bureau to designate one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer must try to agree on an IRE physician with claimant before requesting Bureau designation | Logue: Employer must seek claimant’s agreement first; Bureau designation is only if parties cannot agree | Employer/Board: Statute offers two alternative selection methods; no prerequisite negotiation required | Court: Rejected Logue; statute allows either party agreement or Bureau designation without prior attempt to agree |
| Whether Bureau designation is a unilateral employer choice | Logue: Bureau designation effectively bypasses claimant consent and should be limited | Employer/Board: Bureau designation is an independent selection mechanism, not employer unilateral choice | Court: Agreed Bureau designation is independent and not an employer unilateral selection |
| Whether court should read additional statutory conditions (require negotiation) into §306(a.2) | Logue: Legislative intent favors claimant consultation before designation | Employer/Board: Adding negotiation requirement would rewrite statute and create delay | Court: Refused to add conditions; statutory text does not require prior negotiation |
| Whether allowing immediate Bureau designation frustrates §306(a.2) purpose (efficiency/cost reduction) | Logue: Implied procedural safeguards necessary to protect claimants | Employer/Board: Requiring negotiation would cause delay, undermine efficiency | Court: Holding supports efficiency; negotiation requirement would be contrary to purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Genesis Health Ventures), 888 A.2d 758 (Pa.) (addresses IRE procedures and review standard)
- Diehl v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (I.A. Construction), 5 A.3d 230 (Pa.) (applies §306(a.2) requirements to IREs requested outside statutory timeline)
- Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), 856 A.2d 313 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (interprets selection language as agreement or Bureau designation as exclusive methods)
- Hilyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Joseph T. Pastrill, Jr. Logging), 847 A.2d 232 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (addresses IRE requests and statutory scope)
- Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Ketterer), 87 A.3d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standards for review and IRE interpretation)
- Shafer Electric & Construction v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa.) (principle: courts cannot add requirements not in statute)
- Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93 (Pa.) (statutory construction principles)
- Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp., 213 A.2d 277 (Pa.) (statutory interpretation precedent)
- Stanish v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (James J. Anderson Construction Co.), 11 A.3d 569 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (procedural discussion cited but not controlling for selection requirement)