PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
09/1/2025 – 09/30/2025
JUDICIAL DISCRETION
SUFFICIENT, COMPETENT, EVIDENCE
Federico Vargas-Abreu v. The Clemens Family Corp. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: September 9, 2025
Issue:
Whether the WCJ’s Decision was supported by substantial credible or competent evidence of record?
Background:
Claimant worked for Employer in its meat processing plant. On February 19, 2021, Claimant slipped and fell on ice in Employer’s parking lot sustaining a head injury. Employer issued a medical-only NCP, which accepted liability for the head injury. In 2022, Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging that on December 1, 2021, he sustained a back injury. Claimant sought temporary total disability benefits as of December 2, 2021. Employer issued a Denial for the back injury. Thereafter, Employer filed its Termination Petition relating to the head injury, asserting Claimant was fully recovered as of June 17, 2022. The WCJ granted the Claim Petition for the back injury, and ordered Employer to pay TTD benefits from December 2, 2021, to June 17, 2022, the date on which the WCJ determined Claimant was fully recovered. The WCJ denied Employer’s Termination Petition for the head injury. The WCJ did not find Claimant’s testimony credible as to ongoing symptoms related to Claimant’s back injury. The WCJ credited Employer’s expert’s opinion that Claimant sustained a back injury but fully recovered as of the date of his IME. The Board affirmed.
Holding:
The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision granting Claimant’s Claim Petition for a limited duration and denying the Employer’s Termination Petition. The relevant inquiry in a substantial evidence analysis is not whether the record contains evidence to support facts other than those made by the WCJ; the pertinent inquiry is whether there is evidence to support the findings actually made. Although there is evidence in the record that supports findings contrary to the WCJ’s finding, it was within the WCJ’s province to accept Employer’s expert’s testimony as more credible on the issue of recovery and the extent of Claimant’s back injury. Here, the WCJ considered the medical testimony at length, and provided her reasons for finding Employer’s expert more credible. The WCJ acknowledged the conflicting medical testimony and did not capriciously disregard relevant competent evidence in rendering her Decision. The WCJ is the factfinder and has the sole authority to assess credibility, resolve conflicting evidence, and determine the weight given to the evidence. Further, Employer’s expert’s testimony was not incompetent. A medical expert’s opinion is not rendered incompetent unless it is solely based on inaccurate or false information. Employer’s expert testified that his understanding of the work injury did not impact his conclusion that Claimant had fully recovered. The experts’ testimony was unequivocal.
Affirmed.
UNINSURED EMPLOYERS GUARANTY FUND
PROOF OF OUT-OF-STATE BENEFITS
Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Luis Aguilar, et al (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Published Opinion
Decided: September 9, 2025
Issue:
Whether the Board committed an error of law by concluding it is secondarily liable for the payment of compensation where it is uncontested that Claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act, relating to proof of his ineligibility for workers’ compensation benefits in New Jersey?
Background:
Claimant filed a claim petition alleging he suffered a disabling injury in the nature of a spine and hand fracture, after he fell off a roof while working as a laborer for Joe Miller Construction Company (JMC). JMC denied that it was Claimant’s employer. Claimant filed a claim petition for benefits from the Fund. The Fund filed a petition to join Life Time as an additional defendant, asserting that on the date of his injury, Life Time was Claimant’s employer as a matter of law or, alternatively, Claimant’s statutory employer. The WCJ found JMC did not employ Claimant. Rather, Life Time employed Claimant. The WCJ determined Life Time was domiciled in New Jersey and did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage in Pennsylvania on the date of Claimant’s injury. Accordingly, the WCJ denied and dismissed Claimant’s claim petition against JMC and granted Claimant’s claim petition against the Fund, as secondarily liable, after Life Time. The WCJ noted, however, the Fund was not responsible for payment until Claimant showed that he was not receiving or entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits in the state of New Jersey, consistent with Section 305.2(c.1). The Fund appealed to the Board, arguing the WCJ erred in concluding the Fund was secondarily liable for the payment of compensation because Claimant failed to meet the requirements of Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act by submitting required evidence before the record closed. The Board disagreed, noting the plain language of Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act. There is no directive specifying when proof of benefits in the Employer-domiciled state must be submitted to the Fund. The Act does not specify that this must occur during the initial litigation. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the WCJ’s Decision.
Holding:
The Fund’s challenge to the Board’s interpretation of Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act was without merit. Admittedly, no compensation is payable from the Fund until the employee submits such out-of-state notice, denial, citation or ruling. However, the employee may file a notice or petition against the Fund prior to the submission. Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act conditions the Fund’s payment of compensation on a claimant’s submission of evidence. However, the statute does not reference the Fund’s liability or a required timeline for the submission of such evidence. The Court agreed with the Board’s interpretation and application of section 305.2(c.1).
Affirmed.
COUNSEL FEES
DISCRETIONARY
Joseph A. Prim, Esq. v. Har Jehuda Cemetery, et al (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: September 4, 2025
Issue:
Whether the Board erred by affirming the WCJ denial of the request for quantum meruit attorney’s fees, either for unreasonable contest or under Lorino?
Background:
By decision circulated April 4, 2023, the WCJ denied the quantum meruit fees requested under Lorino.
Holding:
Whether an employer’s contest was reasonable is a question of law, freely reviewable by the Court. In matters involving reasonable contests, WCJs retain discretion to determine whether Section 440 attorney’s fees should be assessed or excluded. The WCJ did not err in observing that a major factual factor in Lorino was that the claimant had no indemnity benefits out of which to pay a contingent fee and would have to pay an hourly rate of $400 to his counsel. The WCJ had discretion to assess or exclude attorney’s fees under Section 440(a) of the Act. The WCJ exercised her discretion in excluding the requested quantum meruit attorney’s fees, and this determination was supported by substantial evidence of record before the WCJ. A medical expert’s opinion is not incompetent unless it is based solely on inaccurate or false information. Further, there is no evidence that the contest was frivolous or intended to harass Claimant. Employer had the right to contest the Claim Petition through an expert. That the WCJ credited Claimant’s experts and did not credit Employer’s expert opinion does not mean that Employer’s expert’s opinion was based wholly on inaccuracies, and the record does not support such a claim. The WCJ was free to rule on the credibility and weight of the evidence presented by the parties, and Claimant ultimately prevailed. However, the argued discrepancies do not render Employer’s expert’s opinions incompetent. The Board correctly affirmed the WCJ, as this was no error in finding Employer’s contest reasonable based on the testimony of its expert.
Affirmed.
MODIFICATION PETITION
LABOR MARKET SURVEY
Amy Walk v. Pennsylvania State University (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: September 17, 2025
Issue:
Whether the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s grant of the Modification Petition, where the vocational expert did not identify the adjudicated available position using one of the sources provided for in Section 306(b)(2)?
Background:
Claimant sustained a work-related injury in the nature of a second-degree burn to her left forearm, which Employer accepted in an Amended Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). Employer issued a Notice of Ability to Return to Work (Notice) indicating that, based on an Independent Medical Examination (IME) Claimant was “able to return to work with some limitations. Employer also had Claimant undergo a vocational interview with a vocational expert, who performed a LMS and identified five vocationally suitable positions for Claimant, obtained medical approval of those positions, and advised Claimant of those positions. Based on the results of the LMS, Employer filed the Modification Petition, seeking to reduce the amount of Claimant’s benefits due to the general availability of work. Claimant testified that shortly after receiving notice of the identified jobs, she applied for all but one of the positions in person and discussed those positions with the employers at that time. She did not hear back from any of the employers. The WCJ concluded that Employer met its burden of proving that Claimant was able to perform one of the positions and granted the Modification Petition.
Holding:
The jobs identified must be actually open and potentially available. To qualify as available, the positions identified as proof of a claimant’s earning power must remain open until such time as the claimant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to apply for them. Evidence offered by a claimant, such as testimony about application during which information is exchanged or follow up communications between a claimant and a prospective employer can support a finding that a position is open and available. Section 306(b)(2) provides that earning power is to “be based upon expert opinion evidence which includes job listings with agencies of the [D]epartment, private job placement agencies and advertisements in the usual employment area.” Under the plain and unambiguous language of Section 306(b)(2), the words “which includes” reflect the General Assembly’s intent that the methods of identifying jobs used therein were provided as examples, not the exclusive means of doing so. Employer’s labor market survey did not have to identify jobs using all, or any, of the three methods identified in Section 306(b)(2) to be valid. Employer met its burden of proving, through legally competent evidence, that it identified an open and available job within Claimant’s vocational and physical capabilities and, therefore, demonstrated an increase in Claimant’s earning power under Section 306(b)(2). The grant of Employer’s Modification Petition was not in error.
Affirmed.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
House Bill 183
A few months ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, House L&I Committee, voted on what is now 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 remains with this committee. It is worthy of note that this bill was amended, just prior to passage, to apply to injuries for which “permanent disfigurement was reached” after the effective date of the provision, whereas it was previously intended to only apply to injuries sustained on or after the effective date. As of today, there has been no new action.
.
NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
9/1/2025-9/30/2025
Peralta v. Silver Line Building Product
Superior Court of New Jersey – Unpublished Opinion
A-0370-24; 2025 WL 2717802
Decided: 9/24/2025
Background:
Petitioner Noberto Peralta (hereinafter Peralta) was employed by Andersen/Silver Line Windows (hereinafter Respondent) as a window fabricator. Petitioner was injured in the process of fabricating windows. The Petitioner was seen by his primary care physician who referred him to a specialist who performed two spinal surgeries. Respondent denied compensability because the surgeries were unauthorized. Petitioner filed a workers’ compensation claim for medical and temporary benefits. The Judge found the accident and the first surgery compensable but found the second surgery was not compensable. Petitioner was also awarded a period of temporary disability benefits. A third surgery was recommended by Petitioner’s doctor. Petitioner’s doctor opined that the surgery was causally related to the accident whereas Respondent’s doctor argued the third surgery was neither directly nor indirectly related to the accident. The Judge found the third surgery was necessary for treatment for the accident. Respondent appealed and challenged the Judge revisiting the ruling that the second surgery was unrelated and also argued the decision was unsupported by the evidence.
Holding:
The court found the decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record. The court further found that the Judge did not err as the issues were not the same.
Affirmed.
EMPLOYMENT STATUS – INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
The rideshare company, Lyft, paid a total of $19.4 million to the State of New Jersey in response to allegations that the company misclassified their drivers as independent contractors. New rules are being considered that would prevent ride sharing drivers from being classified as independent contractors.
NEW JERSEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Assembly Bill 4750
Expands certain employer reporting requirements to include entities that employ or contract with individuals for financial compensation, including ridesharing and delivery technology platforms.
Last Action: January 14, 2025 – Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Labor Committee
Assembly Bill 5198/S3772
Concerns valuation of board and lodging with respect to workers’ compensation.
Last Action: January 23, 2025 – Reported and Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee
Assembly Bill 2637/S794
Concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships.
Last Action: December 5, 2024 – Reported from Senate Committee as a Substitute, 2nd Reading
