W. Zeller v. City of Philadelphia (WCAB)
463 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- William Zeller, a police officer for the City of Philadelphia, contracted COVID-19 in March 2021 and has not worked since.
- Zeller received "E-Time"—full pay without using sick or vacation leave—for ten months, after which he began using his personal leave.
- The City denied Zeller’s workers’ compensation claim, asserting no work-related COVID-19 exposure was proven.
- Zeller filed to reinstate compensation and for penalties, alleging he was paid wages in lieu of workers’ compensation and that benefits were improperly terminated.
- Both the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and the Appeal Board denied his petitions, finding E-Time was not paid as workers' compensation, and no work causation was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E-Time pay was wages in lieu of workers’ compensation | Zeller argued E-Time functioned as wages in lieu of compensation for a work injury | City argued E-Time was a pandemic policy, not a work injury acknowledgment | E-Time was not wages in lieu of compensation |
| Whether Zeller established a work-related injury | Claimed COVID-19 contracted due to job duties and reported as work-related | Denied any evidence or timely notice of work-related cause | Zeller did not prove COVID-19 was work-related by competent evidence |
| Whether the City violated the Act by discontinuing E-Time benefits | Claimed unilateral cessation of "benefits" triggered penalties under Act | Argued no WC benefits had ever started, so nothing to discontinue | City did not violate the Act; no penalty due |
| Whether WCJ erred by rejecting Zeller’s testimony | Claimed supervisor was notified of work-related cause | Denied claim was properly reported or substantiated | WCJ credited employer witnesses, discredited Zeller |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (DePalma Roofing), 669 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (payments must be intended as compensation for a work-related injury to qualify as wages in lieu of compensation)
- Findlay Township v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Phillis), 996 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (employer’s intent in making payments determines whether they are in lieu of compensation)
- Rife v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Whitetail Ski Co.), 812 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (unequivocal medical evidence required to connect injury to work when causation is not obvious)
- VNA of St. Luke’s Home Health/Hospice, Inc. v. Ortiz, 319 A.3d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (WCJ is ultimate fact finder and credibility determiner)