eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – February 2024 – Pennsylvania

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Pennsylvania Case Summaries

Wheatley v. Pyramid Hotel Grp. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1017 C.D. 2022

Decided: January 11, 2024

When a case is remanded by the Board and the WCJ issues a new decision, the case must be appealed to the Board rather than to the Commonwealth Court.

Background

The Claimant filed a Claim Petition in January 2019. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) initially granted the petition, but on appeal, the Board partially affirmed and remanded the case back to the WCJ for further findings. On remand, the parties reached a stipulation, and the WCJ issued an amended order in August 2021. The Claimant then attempted to appeal directly to the Commonwealth Court in September of 2021 without first appealing to the Board. His subsequent application for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely. Later, the Claimant petitioned the Board to certify its determination as final for appeal, which was denied on the grounds of untimeliness. The Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that his initial appeal to the Commonwealth Court in September 2021 should have been considered timely given the circumstances.

Holding

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the Claimant’s petition as untimely. The Court held that the Claimant failed to adhere to the procedural requirements. Additionally, the Court rejected the claimant’s alternative argument that the Board should have used its equitable powers to declare finality, citing the limited circumstances under which equitable relief, such as nunc pro tunc relief, may be granted.

Takeaway

This case demonstrates the importance of adhering to procedural requirements during workers’ compensation appeals.

Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Mangapora at (412) 926-1437 or mmangapora@tthlaw.com.

Sesay v. Southeastern PA Transportation Authority (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of PA
No. 551 C.D. 2022

Decided: January 31, 2024

To justify rehearing before the Board on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, the aggrieved party must demonstrate objective incompetence on the part of counsel and manifest injustice flowing therefrom.

Background

The Claimant filed a Petition to Review, seeking to expand the description of the work injury. During litigation, the Claimant’s attorney agreed on the record that PTSD was not part of the alleged work injury. The WCJ granted the Review Petition in part, adding traumatic hyphemia and macular edema, as stipulated by the parties. The Claimant appealed to the Board. The Claimant did not challenge any of the Judge’s evidentiary findings, but rather argued that his attorney had suppressed evidence or was negligent or ineffective by failing to seek to add PTSD to the description of the work injury. The Board affirmed the Judge’s decision. The Claimant filed an appeal pro se to the Commonwealth Court.

Holding

The Court held that for attorney incompetence to amount to “cause shown” to warrant a rehearing, the Claimant must show “objective incompetence” on the part of counsel and “manifest injustice” to the Claimant flowing from the “objective incompetence.” The Court found no evidence in the record that would establish either “objective incompetence” or “manifest injustice.” Rather, the Claimant’s attorney had presented competent medical evidence before the WCJ and had even been successful in both amending the description of the work injury and defeating a Termination Petition. The Court held that the decision not to pursue PTSD, alone, was insufficient to establish incompetence, as opposed to reasonable legal strategy. The Court also found no evidence of “manifest injustice” to the Claimant, as such evidence of the PTSD condition would not have necessarily changed the Judge’s decision. The Court reasoned that, while the Judge did not consider any medical evidence of PTSD, the Judge acknowledged the Claimant’s testimony regarding the reasons why he felt he could not return to his preinjury job, which included his belief that he did suffer from PTSD.

Takeaway

This case demonstrates the steep burden faced by claimants who appeal based on disagreements with their counsel’s trial strategy.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lee Ann Rhodes, at (412) 926-1453 or lrhodes@tthlaw.com.