PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
7/1/2026 – 7/31/2026
WORK-RELATED AGGRAVATION
RISK OF RE-INJURY UPON RETURN TO WORK
Rodolfo Perez-Martinez v. Dart Container (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Decision.
Decided: July 24, 2026
Issue:
Whether the work-related injury continues because Claimant is not able to return to his pre-injury job under boot mandate without further work-related exacerbation of his underlying foot condition?
Background:
Employer first asked its employees, including Claimant, to wear steel-toed boots or to use covers for their shoes if the employee did not have steel-toed boots. Claimant alleged that the steel-toed boots were heavy and caused his feet to swell; he also developed a bump underneath his left foot. He filed a Claim Petition which alleged that he sustained a foot condition caused by and/or aggravated by required footwear at work. As of the date of the hearing, Claimant had no pain in his left foot and he was no longer taking any medications. He indicated that he has no work restrictions at present. Claimant stated that he has looked for work, but he cannot look for a job based on what he does because he cannot wear boots. Claimant indicated his understanding through the advice of his doctor that he should not have a job in which he has to wear boots. The WCJ granted Claimant’s Claim Petition for a closed period and thereafter terminated his benefits. The WCJ determined that, because of Claimant’s pre-existing foot-type, Claimant developed foot pain and left foot sesamoiditis from wearing the required work boots, which had quieted down and that he could return to work, albeit in a position where he did not have to wear work boots and work on his feet all day. Claimant appealed to the Board which affirmed as the condition underlying Claimant’s injury existed before his employment, and his injury ended.
Holding:
Claimant’s injury was an aggravation of a preexisting, non-work-related condition, the work boots did not cause any structural damage to his foot, and his condition resolved as of October 5, 2022. A termination is generally supported when the evidence establishes that the claimant has fully recovered from the work injury and any remaining disability is no longer the result of the work injury. A claimant, once injured, is not required to “bear the risk of probable severe and totally disabling reinjury by return to heavy work on pain of foregoing all compensation.” With respect to the risk of harm in Claimant’s return to work, the condition keeping Claimant from resuming his work duties is not work-related, but congenital and preexisting. There was no work-related change to the pre-existing condition, only a temporary issue. This makes all of the difference here. It would undermine the principles of the Act to impose liability on Employer for the existence of a congenital pre-existing condition when no residual work-related injury is demonstrated. Claimant did not experience any ongoing disabling changes to his foot or residual physical injuries caused by his employment. Claimant is presented with a difficult decision: he can either lose benefits under the Act and not return to work, or he can return to work under the threat of a potential recurrence if he is again required to wear steel-toed boots.
Affirmed.
COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT
PERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINE
Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Baker (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Published Order
Decided: July 15, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Claimant was injured in the course of her employment, where the injury did not occur on its premises and exceeded the bounds of the personal comfort doctrine?
Background:
Claimant, a pharmacy tech at the Employer, sustained traumatic injuries when, during one of just two mandatory 15-minute breaks, she was struck by a vehicle while trying to cross a street directly in front of Employer’s premises. A previous WCJ denied the claim petition in 2022 as outside the course of employment. Claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant along Murray Avenue, requiring her to cross Giant Eagle’s parking lot and then Murray Avenue itself where the injury occurred. Claimant was “on her own time, in the middle of the street, going to get lunch at the time of the accident. The Board reversed and remanded. On remand, a new WCJ granted the claim petition.
Holding:
Pennsylvania’s personal comfort doctrine controls and applies. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court observed and emphasized a lower court’s recognition that the worker’s injuries were sustained while awaiting further work, i.e., “not a period, when by the rules of the employment, the employe was free from the duties of his employment.” Dzikowska, 103 A. at 352. But fundamentally, Dzikowska is important for its adoption of the personal comfort doctrine. No break in the employment is caused by the mere fact that the employee is ministering to his personal comforts or necessities, as by warming himself, or seeking shelter, or by leaving his work to relieve nature, or to procure drink, refreshments, food, or fresh air, or to rest in the shade. Here, based on the facts as found by the WCJ, Claimant was on one of only two obligatory 15-minute breaks and using that break to cross the street, procure takeout and relieve her hunger when she was injured. Claimant’s injury occurred when she was undertaking a simple “act of ministration” and is thus compensable. The brevity of the break afforded to Claimant diminished or tempered the autonomy that attended it. In other words, the break afforded to Claimant was so cursory that when she set out to undertake an act of ministration that act was all she had time for. The fact that Claimant was jaywalking at the time of her injury is immaterial to the analysis. The employer is liable for accidents in the course of employment, except for injuries ‘intentionally self-inflicted,’ or caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the workman for reasons personal to him.”
AFFIRMED.
Judges Dumas, Fizzano Cannon, and Covey dissent.
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON
The Majority overlooked relevant and even dispositive distinctions in this area of the law, which put this matter squarely within the personal comfort doctrine. Neither the law nor the facts in this case support a determination that the personal comfort doctrine applies here and Claimant’s injury is not compensable.
APPEALS TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT
WAIVER OF ISSUES
Monica Niculcea v. Susquehanna Valley Nursing (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Published Opinion
Decided: July 10, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Claimant waived an issue on appeal?
Background:
Claimant was pro se on appeal. She petitioned this court to review a decision of the WCJ, affirmed by the Board, denying an alleged work-related injury. Claimant fell while assisting other employees with the transfer of a patient from the floor to a bed. Claimant alleged that fall resulted in work-related injuries including neck and back pain, blurred vision, headaches, and incontinence. Employer paid benefits under several Notices of Temporary Compensation Payable. Employer gave notice it would not accept liability and issued a Notice Stopping Temporary Compensation and a Notice of Workers’ Compensation Denial. Claimant filed a claim petition but her then-attorney withdrew that petition and advised the WCJ “Claimant is unable to produce legally sufficient medical evidence to meet her burden on the Claim Petition at this time.” On the last day of the three-year period from the date of injury allowed for the filing of a claim, Claimant filed a petition, but not a Claim Petition. Employer moved to dismiss, but the WCJ denied the motion and treated Claimant’s filing as a timely claim petition. The WCJ did not find Claimant’s testimony credible and credited the testimony of other witnesses who contradicted Claimant. The Board affirmed. Claimant submitted a document to the Court indicating her intention to appeal the Order. Claimant timely filed her Petition. Respondents then filed the Application to quash.
Holding:
This Court will not find waiver simply because an issue is not detailed in a petition for review, so long as the issue is properly presented in the brief. Application to quash based on waiver denied. However, the Court denied Claimant’s appeal. There is no indication in the record the WCJ ignored any relevant evidence. The WCJ specifically addressed in her Decision many of the allegations and evidence Claimant argued the WCJ ignored. The WCJ clearly rejected Claimant’s evidence as not credible, and credited contrary testimony and documents that undermined her claim, but a decision to reject a claimant’s evidence is not an indication of capricious disregard. Accordingly, the WCJ did not commit legal error.
Affirmed.
APPEALS TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT
TIMELINESS OF APEALS
The Royal Indian Cuisine v. Salim and URGF (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: July 13, 2026
Issue:
Whether Employer’s appeal must be quashed as untimely filed?
Background:
Employer employed Claimant as a tandoori chef. Claimant filed a Claim Petition. Employer denied that Claimant was an employee and that he sustained compensable work injuries. Later, Claimant filed the UEGF Claim Petition for the same injuries listed in the Claim Petition. The UEGF filed an answer denying the UEGF Claim Petition’s material allegations. The UEGF filed a Petition for Physical Examination, alleging that Claimant failed to attend a physical examination. The WCJ granted the Claim Petitions. The WCJ dismissed the PE Petition as moot. Employer appealed to the Board. The Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision. Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Holding:
The Court directed the parties to address the appeal’s timeliness in their principal briefs on the merits. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1512(a)(1) requires “a petition for review … shall be filed with the prothonotary of the appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the order.” Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a)(1). Here, where the Board entered its order on January 22, 2025, Employer had until February 21, 2025, to file its petition for review in the Commonwealth Court. Employer filed its petition for review in this Court on February 24, 2025, which is beyond the 30-day time limit. Employer has failed to establish any grounds that might excuse its late filing, “declining even to address the issue of timeliness in [its] brief in contravention of this Court’s [August 15, 2025 O]rder.” Accordingly, Employer’s appeal is quashed.
Quashed
PENALTIES
Aron Richline v. Tractor Supply Company (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: July 2, 2026
Issue:
Whether Claimant is entitled to a 50 percent penalty imposed on the total amount of benefits that he alleges were underpaid since October 25, 2022?
Background:
Claimant filed a penalty petition against Employer, alleging that Employer violated the Workers’ Compensation Act by failing to pay Claimant his full benefits in accordance with the decision of the WCJ. The WCJ found that, from June 2023 through July 2023, Employer appeared to take an improper credit on Claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits, thereby reducing his weekly compensation rate. Claimant appealed to the Board, asserting that the WCJ had erred in calculating the penalty. Specifically, according to Claimant, the 50 percent penalty should not have been calculated solely on the underpaid benefits from June and July 2023, but rather on the total amount of benefits retroactively due since October 25, 2022, which Claimant alleged were unpaid as well. The Board affirmed the WCJ.
Holding:
In a penalty petition proceeding, the Claimant bears the burden of proving that the employer violated the Act. Where substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s findings of fact, those findings are conclusive on appeal, despite the existence of contrary evidence. Substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s finding that Claimant established a violation of the Act when Employer improperly reduced Claimant’s benefits in June and July 2023. Although substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s decision to impose a 50 percent penalty on the underpayments Claimant received in June and July 2023, the record, viewed in its entirety, reveals unresolved questions regarding whether Employer ever issued the retroactive benefits owed under the stipulation. Claimant consistently asserted nonpayment, and the record contains evidence supporting that claim, yet the WCJ’s decision does not clearly resolve this issue. The Board’s affirmance leaves a material factual question unresolved. On remand, the WCJ must make additional findings and clarify whether Employer issued the retroactive benefits required by the stipulation, and in turn, whether any additional penalties are warranted.
Reversed and Remanded
TERMINATION PETITION
BURDEN OF PROOF
Alvin Sewell v. United Parcel Service (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: July 24, 2026
Issue:
Whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the termination of Claimant’s benefits.
Background:
In the Commonwealth Courts previous opinion, (Sewell I, July 2025), it affirmed in part the order of the WCJ to correct the record. Following remand and after reviewing a now complete record, the Court affirmed the remainder of the Board’s order. Claimant alleged that he suffered an injury described as “aggravation/acceleration of right foot condition” due to “repetitive trauma.” Claimant submitted a second claim petition alleging that he sustained a later work injury. A car ran over and crushed his right foot when he was six years old. Claimant led “a very active life,” including competing in track and cross country. Claimant worked full time for Employer for 17 years. The WCJ granted Claimant’s claim petition for the closed periods. Claimant sustained a work-related aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his right foot. Claimant and Employer both appealed to the Board, each raising multiple issues. The Board affirmed the WCJ’s order in most respects; however, the Board remanded to the WCJ solely to consider whether Claimant’s litigation costs had been paid. The WCJ subsequently issued a decision and order explaining the parties agreed all litigation costs had since been paid. Sewell I disposed of most of the issues. The only question was the propriety of the termination of benefits.
Holding:
Claimant asserts that he still has symptoms of his accepted work injury that have not resolved. As the WCJ noted, Claimant’s own doctors did not claim that either the osteophytes or the arthritis was due to anything but the childhood trauma, and neither opined that the osteophytic formation or any increase in Claimant’s underlying arthritis occurred as a result of Claimant’s job duties. However, these pre-existing conditions were aggravated by and became symptomatic due to Claimant’s job duties and resulted in periods of compensable disability. Nonetheless, the WCJ specifically credited the testimony that Claimant had returned to baseline as of his second IME. The testimony relied upon amounts to substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the work-related aggravation of Claimant’s pre-existing conditions had ceased. Claimant’s arguments go to the weight of the evidence and witness credibility, determinations properly left to the WCJ as fact finder.
Affirmed.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
House Bill 183 is now Senate Bill 1094.
A few months ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, House L&I Committee, voted on what was then designated as HB 183. This Bill expands access to workers’ compensation disfigurement benefits by increasing the duration of eligibility from up to 275 weeks to a new level of up to 400 weeks, extending the benefit to the entire body, and not just to the head, face and neck, and allowing these benefits to be paid simultaneously with indemnity benefits. The bill was passed by the House on April 7, 2025, and has now been referred to the Senate Labor & Industry Committee. It is now under Senate Bill 1094 and has yet to be reported from the committee.
Other Selected Proposed Legislation of Interest in the 2025-2026 session
The following selected amendments to the PA Workers’ Compensation Act have been proposed, but as of this date are in early stages, and no formal vote as been held, and these are referred to their respective L&I Committees:
In the Senate: (these are still in committee)
Senate Bill 801 – Seeks to clarify that the Act provides the exclusive remedy for any injury or disease that may arise out of hazardous occupational exposure, whether the disease is compensable or not.
Senate Bill 894 – Seeks to clarify the “Independent Contractor Classification.”
Senate Bill 1151 – Removal of Clinical Practice Requirement for Physicians Performing Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs).
Senate Bill 1215 – Addressing Excessive Costs for Prescription Topical Drugs in Workers’ Compensation. Reported as “committed” effective June 2026.
House Bill 2049 – Raising Workers’ Compensation Burial Benefits. (Sent to the senate on June 18, 2026)
House Bill 2087 – Ensuring that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are covered under workers’ compensation when injured during fundraising activities. (Sent to the senate on April 2026)
Approved by the Senate on March 24, 2026 – Sent to the House and now referred out of Committee as amended in April 2026.
Senate Bill 1053 – Seeks to clarify workers compensation coverage for EMS Volunteers.
In the House Only: (these are still in committee)
House Bill 1766 – Workers’ Compensation Coverage of Prescribed Medical Cannabis (Formerly HB 1079).
House Bill 1998 – Modernizing and Improving Medical Treatment in Workers’ Compensation
NEW JERSEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Assembly Bill 4617
Concerns certain workers’ compensation supplemental benefits and funding method.
Last Action: March 10, 2026 – Introduced, Referred to Assembly Labor Committee
Senate Bill 3984/A1023
Requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances.
Last Action: March 19, 2026 – Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Commerce Committee
Senate Bill 3342
Increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75.
Last Action: February 5, 2026 – Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Bill 3571/A3548
Provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers’ compensation claim regardless of outside employment.
Last Action: May 7, 2026 – Reported and Referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee
Assembly Bill 4827
Requires Administrative Law Judges to be enrolled in Workers Compensation Judges Part of PERS.
Last Action: May 4, 2026 – Introduced, Referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee
