Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
161 A.3d 827
| Pa. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Mary Ann Protz suffered a work-related knee injury; her employer, Derry Area School District, later requested an impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) under 77 P.S. § 511.2.
- The IRE physician used the Sixth Edition of the AMA Guides and assigned a 10% whole‑body impairment; Derry petitioned to modify Protz’s status from total to partial disability based on that rating.
- Protz challenged Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act as an unconstitutional delegation because it requires physicians to use “the most recent edition” of the AMA Guides.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board upheld the employer; the Commonwealth Court (en banc) held the statute unconstitutional insofar as it adopted editions beyond the Fourth Edition and remanded to apply the Fourth Edition.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (majority) held that the General Assembly unconstitutionally delegated legislative power by prospectively adopting future editions of the AMA Guides and struck Section 306(a.2) in its entirety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Protz) | Defendant's Argument (Derry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring use of the "most recent edition" of the AMA Guides unlawfully delegates legislative power | The statute gives the AMA unfettered law‑making authority to set impairment standards; delegation violates Article II, §1 | The legislature permissibly adopted a current external medical standard; relying on AMA expertise is practical and not a delegation of lawmaking | Held unconstitutional: prospective incorporation of future editions is an unlawful delegation; basic policy choices and adequate standards absent |
| Whether delegation to a private entity (AMA) is per se unconstitutional | Private entities lack public accountability; delegation to a private body raises special non‑delegation concerns | The statute delegates to licensed, board‑certified physicians, not the AMA itself; other states uphold similar provisions | Court did not decide a categorical rule but relied on non‑delegation principles applicable even if recipient were governmental; private delegation heightens concern |
| Remedy: severability and proper fallback edition | Protz: court should strike entire provision; Commonwealth Court’s remand to Fourth Edition improperly rewrites statute | Derry: Commonwealth Court correctly limited invalidity prospectively and instructed use of Fourth Edition | Court: language "most recent edition" must be excised; because Guides are integral and pervasive, the entire Section 306(a.2) is void and struck down |
Key Cases Cited
- Protz v. W.C.A.B. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Commonwealth Court en banc holding statute unconstitutional insofar as it adopted editions beyond the Fourth Edition)
- Blackwell v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Commission, 567 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1989) (delegation doctrine requires legislature to make basic policy choices)
- Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (importance of safeguards against arbitrary administrative action)
- West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary Sch. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 132 A.3d 957 (Pa. 2016) (invalid delegation where statute lacked measures to channel discretion and prevent arbitrary action)
- Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (legislation delegating authority must contain adequate standards to guide and restrain)