North Pittsburgh Drywall Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
59 A.3d 30
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant sustained a work injury to his right wrist (2001) and was placed in a light-duty role offered by Employer (2008).
- Claimant begun light-duty work but lacked transportation; after brief participation, transportation became unavailable and he stopped working in the light-duty job.
- Employer sought to suspend benefits; WCJ denied suspension; Board reversed; this Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for factual findings on rate of pay and duration of the light-duty position.
- Remand proceedings led to a 2008 WCJ decision denying suspension and denying penalties; Board later affirmed penalties and remanded for rate/duration findings.
- This Court ultimately reversed the Board’s denial of suspension, affirmed penalties, and remanded for factual findings on Claimant’s light-duty pay rate and the duration to determine ongoing suspension/partial suspension viability.
- The timing of Employer’s benefit payments after Owen I (vacatur) raised penalties under Section 435(d); approximately twenty months elapsed before payment, leading to a penalty assessment that was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of earnings was through no fault of Claimant | Owen I held the loss was through no fault due to transportation loss | Virgo requires fault-based analysis; no formal suspension existed post-Owen I | Yes; loss was through no fault of Claimant; suspension proper |
| Whether the unpaid wages on brief days defeated suspension | Payment on two/three days would not negate availability of suspension | Failure to pay those days does not bar suspension where legally warranted | Red herring; not controlling for suspension analysis |
| Whether Employer violated the Act by not resuming benefits after Owen I vacatur | Benefits must be resumed once Board order vacated; no supersedeas | Remand did not explicitly direct resumption; dispute on timing | Employer violated the Act; penalties warranted |
| Whether penalties were properly assessed and amount warranted | Penalty justified due to lack of payment during litigation | Remand and lack of final order complicated penalties | Penalty affirmed; timing and amount consistent with statute and case law |
| What findings are needed to determine partial vs total suspension | Findings on rate of pay and duration essential | Remand pending factual determinations acceptable | Remand for WCJ to determine rate of pay and duration of light-duty position required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz-Penske Truck Leasing Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bowers), 546 Pa. 257 (Pa. 1996) (focus of suspension inquiry is injury-related earning power)
- Beattie v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.), 713 A.2d 187 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (reinstatement when loss of earnings not tied to injury barred benefits)
- Campbell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Foamex), 707 A.2d 1188 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (reinstatement denied where non-work loss of transportation not work-related)
- Virgo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (County of Lehigh-Cedarbrook), 890 A.2d 13 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (employer bears burden to show lack of good faith when no formal suspension exists)
- Pappans Family Restaurant v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Ganoe), 729 A.2d 661 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (remand governs reinstatement with no formal suspension; guidance on discharge reasons)
- Snizaski v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Rox Coal Co.), 586 Pa. 146 (Pa. 2006) (default/penalty timing; penalties available upon failure to pay; need supersedeas only when pursuing review)