S. Gilliard v. WCAB (Protocall, Inc.)
8 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- Claimant (Gilliard) injured her left index finger on June 13, 2013 while working for Protocall, a temporary agency; Employer initially paid benefits and later offered modified duty.
- Claimant accepted but left work early on June 26, 2013; Employer stopped benefits June 25, 2013 and later denied ongoing total disability.
- Claimant underwent surgery Aug. 22, 2013, filed a claim petition for benefits and medical bills, and both sides presented conflicting medical experts at hearing.
- Employer sent a Sept. 3, 2014 letter offering transitional front‑desk duties (answering phones, data entry, filing); Claimant accepted transportation money but did not report to the job.
- WCJ awarded benefits for limited periods, suspended benefits when Employer proved available accommodated work and Claimant failed to follow up, and found Employer’s contest unreasonable (awarded attorney’s fees); the Board reversed only the attorney‑fee award; this Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer's Sept. 2014 job‑referral met Hockenberry standards to suspend benefits | Gilliard: letter lacked sufficient job detail, author disclaimed knowing medical restrictions, so referral insufficient | Protocall: letter gave general classification and basic duties; no need for author to review medical records | Held: Referral met Hockenberry/Eidem — general classification, stated within cleared category, basic duties supplied; suspension proper |
| Whether Employer reasonably contested liability such that attorney’s fees should be denied | Gilliard: Employer knew of injury and surgery, so contest was unreasonable and fees should be awarded | Protocall: contest concerned degree/period of disability — a legitimately disputed issue | Held: Contest was reasonable because degree/period of disability was disputed and Employer prevailed in part; WCJ's fee award reversed |
| Whether claimant abandoned modified duty on June 26, 2013 and Sept. 11, 2014 | Gilliard: contested that she was unable to perform the modified duties pre‑surgery and that Sept. 11 job offer was inadequate | Protocall: evidence showed Claimant left early unrelated to injury and failed to follow up on Sept. 11 offer despite accepting transport money | Held: WCJ credibility findings supported suspension for both periods; substantial evidence upheld |
| Standard for employer job referrals when employee has medical restrictions | Gilliard: demands concrete proof the employer used physician guidelines in selection | Protocall: focus should be on content of referral, not the process used to generate it | Held: Court affirmed that content (classification + basic duties + statement job fits cleared category) controls; process need not be detailed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hockenberry v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania State Police), 672 A.2d 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (job referral must include general classification and basic job description)
- Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 532 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1987) (elements for suspending/modifying benefits via job referral)
- Eidem v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Gnaden‑Huetten Memorial Hospital), 746 A.2d 101 (Pa. 2000) (rejects hypertechnical review; referral reviewed in common‑sense manner)
- Pruitt v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Lighthouse Rehabilitation), 730 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (employer bears burden to show contest was reasonable)
- Varghese v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (M. Cardone Industries), 573 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1990) (conflicting medical evidence on disability degree justifies reasonable contest)