W. Joyner v. WCAB (Best Personnel)
351 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Claimant Walter Joyner worked for Best Personnel and alleged a work injury on March 12, 2015.
- Employer/Insurer issued a $268.35 payment on April 8, 2015 covering March 13–25, 2015 and on April 9, 2015 issued an NTCP, an NSTC, and an NCD stopping indemnity as of March 26, 2015.
- Claimant filed a Penalty Petition (Sept. 16, 2015) seeking a 50% penalty plus interest and fees for unilateral stoppage of benefits.
- WCJ held hearings, found Employer violated Section 406.1 by failing to timely file acceptance/denial paperwork, and awarded a $1,000 penalty.
- Employer cross‑appealed; the Board reversed the WCJ on Feb. 28, 2017, holding the WCJ imposed a penalty for an unpled violation without notice; Claimant appealed to this Court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board: penalty vacated for being based on an unpled theory and no record evidence showed Employer had notice of the injury; the NSTC was timely under controlling precedent so benefits were not reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joyner) | Defendant's Argument (Best/Insurer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ erred in imposing penalty under Section 435(d) | WCJ correctly found Employer violated the Act by using NTCP/NSTC/NCD in a confusing/disingenuous way and stopped benefits unilaterally | Penalty was based on a violation not pleaded; Employer had no notice or opportunity to defend that specific theory | Penalty reversed: WCJ imposed penalty for an unpled violation without notice; Board affirming reversal was proper |
| Whether Employer violated §406.1 (timely filing/first payment) | Employer failed to timely file required documentation; WCJ’s factual finding supports penalty | No evidence of when Employer received notice; thus cannot show §406.1 deadline was missed | Court held there was no record evidence of when Employer had notice, so §406.1 violation not proven |
| Whether NTCP converted to open NCP because NSTC was untimely under §406.1(d)(5)(i) | Because payment on April 8 covered period ending March 25, NSTC filed April 9 was untimely and NTCP converted to NCP, entitling reinstatement of indemnity | Last payment date is the date compensation was actually paid (April 8); NSTC filed April 9 was within five days and was timely | Held NSTC was timely under Jones precedent; NTCP did not convert to NCP; indemnity benefits not reinstated |
| Whether indemnity reinstatement was an available remedy on penalty petition | Claimant sought reinstatement as remedy for violation | Employer argued claimant did not request reinstatement in petition and penalty statute does not authorize reinstatement | Court held §435(d) authorizes penalties but not reinstatement and Claimant did not request reinstatement; benefits not reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Gumm v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Steel), 942 A.2d 222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (burden in penalty petitions)
- Brasco v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Gee Bee Furniture), 546 A.2d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (notice and hearing required before imposing penalties)
- Reilly v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Gen. Elec. Co.), 584 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (procedural protections for penalties)
- Crangi Distrib. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 333 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (due process in penalty proceedings)
- Jones v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Villanova Univ.), 164 A.3d 542 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (last payment date computed from when compensation must be paid)
- Lindstrom Co., Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Braun), 992 A.2d 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (pre‑payment context for NSTC timing)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sherlock), 934 A.2d 156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (question whether employer violates Act is legal)
- Kelly v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Phila.), 647 A.2d 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (notice under §311 is question of fact)