Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC v. WCAB (Neugebauer)
Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC v. WCAB (Neugebauer) - 1766 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Claimant (Neugebauer) injured his back at work on August 18, 2014; parties stipulated Claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation for the closed period August 22, 2014–March 9, 2015 and received maximum compensation rate during that period.
- Claimant had received short-term disability (STD) benefits through Metropolitan Life that the parties agreed ended around November 26, 2014; parties preserved Employer’s right to seek a credit for those STD payments later.
- Employer (Verizon) filed a review offset petition seeking a credit for STD benefits it alleges fully funded; Employer bore the burden to prove the payments and its funding extent.
- At the WCJ hearing Employer’s sole witness (Meyer/Neyer) testified Employer paid approximately $15,784.20 in STD benefits but misstated the year (testified August–November 2015 instead of 2014); Employer admitted two exhibits (prior WCJ decision and Claimant transcript).
- WCJ denied Employer’s petition, finding Employer failed to prove overlap between STD payments and compensable WC period; Board affirmed. On appeal the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded for further factfinding and possible additional evidence to reconcile admissions and plan documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Employer) | Defendant's Argument (Claimant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer proved entitlement to a credit for STD payments against the workers’ compensation award | Employer: record shows Claimant received STD benefits during the WC disability period and Employer funded the plan, entitling it to a subrogation/offset credit | Claimant: testimony and record do not establish timing, amounts, or that Employer funded payments; evidence is vague and insufficient | Majority: remand to reconcile admissions, plan documents, and witness confusion and allow additional evidence if needed; vacated Board order |
| Whether remand is appropriate to permit Employer to supplement the record | Employer: remand needed to correct Board’s characterization of record as vague and to establish funding/overlap | Claimant: remand would give Employer an improper second chance; Employer had opportunity to present evidence and reopen record earlier | Dissent (Leavitt, P.J.): would affirm Board — Employer had chance to develop record and did not; remand improperly allows second bite |
| Burden of proof and evidentiary standard in review offset proceedings | Employer: argued existing record (admissions, plan summary, witness) supports credit | Claimant: argued Employer failed to meet its burden to show extent of funding and overlap | Court: reiterates employer bears burden and may need actuarial/documentary proof; remand ordered to permit proper proof and findings |
| Admissibility/weight of post-hearing plan summary introduced by Claimant | Employer: objected that summary was unauthenticated or not relevant | Claimant: introduced to show Employer funded plan and plan’s reduction language | Court: relied on plan summary as part of record discussion and directed reconciliation on remand; Board did not resolve objections previously |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaze v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 41 A.3d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employer bears burden to prove entitlement and extent of funding for an offset)
- Murphy v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 871 A.2d 312 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (subrogation prevents double recovery)
- Emery Worldwide v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 540 A.2d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (litigant shouldn’t get a second bite at the apple on remand)
- Sharkey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tempo, Inc.), 739 A.2d 641 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (WCJ has discretion to reopen a closed record)
- Puhl v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sharon Steel Corp.), 724 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Board may remand where interests of justice require)
- Williams v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Montgomery Ward), 562 A.2d 437 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (appellant may not raise new issues on appeal that were not preserved below)
- Meadow Lakes Apartments v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (scope of appellate review over agency findings)