Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyers Blog

We read an interesting blog this week on ThePopTort.com. It brings to light the effect that judicial elections can have on injured workers, using the example of a law that was recently passed in Ohio. We recommend that you click on the link below to read the full article:

http://www.thepoptort.com/2010/03/judicial-elections-have-consequences.html

The website RiskandInsurance.com recently discussed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that upheld the denial of a worker's petition for benefits because he did not establish an employer-employee relationship.

According to the article, the worker was a plumber who injured his arm while on the job. The company's owner stated that the plumber arrived at a jobsite one day and asked to work. The company's owner stated that he hired the plumber as a contractor. Although the company's owner provided large tools, he did not supply the hand tools, a truck, or training. As a result, the plumber's claim was denied because he was not an employee of the company. When the plumber argued that the company admitted the existence of an employment relationship by referring to him as an employee in the company's answer to his petition, the board rejected his argument. The board said that a party's overall characterizations in its pleadings do not constitute admissions of legal matters.

The article summarizes that, in Pennsylvania, an employer's failure to specifically deny the existence of an employment relationship does not automatically admit an employment relationship existed. To establish an employer-employee relationship, a worker must show that the employer exercised sufficient control over his or her work.

According to a recent ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, a workers' compensation insurer can suspend benefits when an injured worker refuses to enter a detox program... even if the program will not treat the worker's medical condition or help him or her return to employment.

The ruling arose from a case involving an employee who had been receiving workers' compensation benefits for 10 years for a lumbar spine injury when her former employer tried to end her benefits. The workers' comp judge denied the employer's request to terminate the benefits, but instead said that the injured employee should enter a detoxification program to help wean her off the prescription pain medication she had been taking for her injury.

When the injured employee refused the detox treatment, the employer filed a petition to suspend her workers' comp benefits on the grounds that she was refusing reasonable medical treatment.

At the hearing, the physician who would oversee the injured employee's detox program testified that although the treatment would not allow her to return to her pre-injury job, it would allow her to return to normal functioning and enhance her prospects for gainful employment. The judge agreed with the physician's opinion, ruling that the detox program was reasonable medical treatment.

While this "forfeiture" provision of the Workers Compensation Act is rarely used, injured workers should be aware of its existence. Often a treating physician will offer surgery, however the patient is reluctant because the surgeon advises that the procedure has many risks and may not improve the patient's condition and could actually worsen the injury and disability. In those instances it is usually considered reasonable to refuse the treatment, however every case is unique and therefore an injured worker should always consult with his or her attorney before making the decision to refuse treatment.

According to an article on the OCRegister.com, a Murietta, CA roofing contractor pleaded guilty to 16 felony counts, including perjury, filing false documents, and making false statements, for failing to provide workers' comp insurance for an employee who injured himself.

The article reported that, according to prosecutors, the roofing contractor purchased the minimum workers' compensation insurance policy for his company, then reported that he had no employees. To hide their employment, he paid his workers in cash and submitted inaccurate payrolls reports.

When an employee filed a workers' compensation claim as a result of a fall from a roof, the roofing contractor denied that the man worked for him. As a result, the employee was denied benefits.

The maximum sentence for the convictions is 21 years and eight months in prison. According to prosecutors, the roofing contractor is expected to be sentenced to three years in state prison.

Continue reading "California Roofing Contractor Found Guilty of Workers' Comp Fraud" »