Protz, M. v. WCAB (Derry SD) Apl of: Derry SD
Protz, M. v. WCAB (Derry SD) Apl of: Derry SD - No. 7 WAP 2016
| Pa. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Mary Ann Protz challenged Section 306(a.2) of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 511.2, which requires impairment ratings be determined pursuant to the most recent edition of the AMA Guides.
- The statute directs that, after 104 weeks of total disability, a physician (licensed in PA, board-certified, active in clinical practice) evaluate the degree of impairment using the most recent AMA Guides; ratings ≥50% presume total disability; lower ratings trigger partial benefits after notice.
- Commonwealth Court held Section 306(a.2) unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the AMA; the case was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Justice Baer (dissenting) argues the statute does not delegate legislative power to the AMA but rather prescribes a current, objective medical standard for physicians to apply, preserving legislative policy choices and adequate standards.
- The dissent emphasizes practical necessity: legislatures lack the expertise to define evolving medical impairment standards and may permissibly incorporate private expert standards that are periodically revised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Protz) | Defendant's Argument (Derry Area SD / Workers' Comp. Bd.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 306(a.2) unlawfully delegates legislative power by mandating use of the most recent AMA Guides | The statute delegates lawmaking to a private entity (AMA) because it binds determinations to whatever edition the AMA issues | The statute makes a legislative policy choice to adopt current, expert medical standards and directs physicians to apply them; it does not cede lawmaking to the AMA | Dissent (Justice Baer): statute is constitutional; adopting current AMA Guides is a valid legislative policy and not an unlawful delegation |
| Whether the statute supplies adequate standards to guide delegated functions | Protz: reliance on a privately revised standard lacks legislative guidance and restraint | Derry: statute provides standards via physician qualifications, clinical-practice requirements, and the objective AMA methodology | Dissent: statutory guardrails (credentialing, practice requirement, objective Guides) provide adequate standards |
| Whether periodic revisions by a private organization convert the statute into an unconstitutional delegation | Protz: periodic private revisions mean the law's operative rule is set by a private body | Derry: periodic updates reflect evolving medical science; allowing updates preserves accuracy of impairment ratings | Dissent: periodic revisions do not transform a valid statute into an unconstitutional delegation; other jurisdictions reached same conclusion |
| Broader impact on other statutes referencing current external standards | Protz: constitutional problem could extend to other statutes relying on private standards | Derry: invalidating this practice would disrupt many statutes that adopt professional standards; Legislature reasonably relies on expert bodies | Dissent: majority's approach risks upsetting many statutes and undermines accurate, up-to-date evaluations; statute should stand |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Mifflin Area Sch. Dist. v. Zahorchak, 4 A.3d 1042 (Pa. 2010) (legislature must make basic policy choices)
- Lehman v. Pa. State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (separation of powers and limits on delegation)
- Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (legislature must supply adequate standards to guide delegated functions)
- Protz v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Commonwealth Court decision at issue)
- Madrid v. St. Joseph Hospital, 928 P.2d 250 (N.M. 1996) (upholding statutory incorporation of periodically revised private medical standards as non-delegatory)