PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
5/1/2026 – 5/31/2026
NUNC PRO TUNC APPEALS
Breanna Litka v. A-Team Home Care, Inc. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished Memorandum Opinion
Decided: May 22, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Claimant’s untimely appeal may be heard nunc pro tunc?
Background:
Claimant worked as a home care aid. Claimant filed a Claim Petition, alleging that she sustained a lumbar disc injury, while moving a patient from a wheelchair to the shower. The WCJ denied and dismissed the Claim Petition. Claimant appealed the WCJ’s Decision to the Board. On September 12, 2024, the Board affirmed. On October 17, 2024, Claimant filed a pro se letter evidencing her intention to appeal the Board’s Decision. Employer raised the issue of the timeliness of Claimant’s appeal in its merits brief filed on April 17, 2025. The Court issued an order noting that Claimant’s petition for review may be untimely and directing the parties to address the timeliness of the petition in supplemental briefs.
Holding:
Here, the Board’s order was entered on September 12, 2024. Thirty days from that date was Saturday, October 12, 2024, so Claimant had until Monday, October 14, 2024, to file her appeal. Therefore, Claimant’s appeal was facially untimely. Failure to timely appeal an administrative agency’s action is a jurisdictional defect; therefore, the time for taking an appeal cannot be extended as a matter of grace or mere indulgence. Here, there is no allegation of fraud, a breakdown of the administrative process or non-negligent circumstances. This Court has explained that the negligence or misconduct of counsel is not a breakdown in the judicial process justifying nunc pro tunc filings. The failure to file a timely appeal must be due to non-negligent conduct by the appellant’s counsel. Counsel’s alleged failure to inform Claimant of her right to appeal the Board’s decision does not qualify as a breakdown in the court’s operations, but rather is an instance of counsel’s negligence, which does not warrant nunc pro tunc relief. In accordance with the above, the Court was constrained to quash Claimant’s petition for review as untimely. Affirmed
WCAB JURISDICTION
Cynthia Sakmary v. Home Care Hospice, Inc. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Unpublished
Decided: May 22, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Board wrongly dismissed her petition without a hearing in violation of her due process rights as to whether her C&R could be set aside?
Background:
Claimant sustained disabling spinal and brain injuries and developed mental health conditions when injured in the course of her employment. She was awarded benefits, with 20 percent deducted for attorney’s fees. She was also approved for SSD. Her counsel assured her that SSD payments would increase to cover the loss of her workers’ compensation benefits and that she could invest the $80,000 so it would last through her life expectancy. Claimant trusted her attorney and agreed to the C&R. A WCJ conducted a C&R hearing in Pennsylvania; Claimant participated by cell phone, without video. Because she did not have the stimulant to counter the effects of her narcotic medication, she alleged she was drowsy, had difficulty concentrating, and did not fully understand what was happening during the hearing. She added that prior to the hearing, her attorney did not send her the entire C&R agreement, only the signature page. The record did not include a transcript of the hearing but does include the WCJ’s decision approving the C&R, which stated that Claimant credibly testified that she understood the terms and legal significance of the agreement. Her attorney assured Claimant that her SSD payments would increase to make up the difference from the “loss” of her regular workers’ compensation payments after the C&R but did not provide her with specific figures. After the C&R, Claimant’s SSD benefits increased to about $1,500 per month but were still lower than her prior workers’ compensation benefits of $2,760 per month. Her attorney advised that Social Security must have made a mistake and advised her to try and resolve the matter through Social Security. In 2021, she was advised that the Social Security office had made no errors. Her physician filed the present petition on Claimant’s behalf via WCAIS, along with a letter explaining that he supported her desire to set aside the 2012 C&R because he believed that due to her brain injuries and overmedication with multiple narcotics but without the corresponding stimulant to counteract those side effects, she was not cognitively fit when she signed the C&R. For reasons unclear in the record, the petition filed on Claimant’s behalf via WCAIS was directed to the Board and not to a WCJ for adjudication. The Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant instead appealed to the Court. On May 9, 2025, Employer filed with the Court a motion to quash.
Holding:
The Act empowers the Board to address matters firsthand via original jurisdiction only in certain circumstances, none of which is present here. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of proceedings or sua sponte by the court, which includes the Board. If the Board decides a jurisdictional question, the aggrieved party may appeal that determination to this Court for consideration in our appellate jurisdiction. However, the Court’s jurisdiction over that appeal is limited. Claimant’s petition appears to have been intended to go to a WCJ for fact-finding and initial evaluation of her claims in support of her request to set aside the 2012 C&R. It went to the Board. The Board stated that it could not assume appellate jurisdiction over a petition that had never been adjudicated by a WCJ. The Board also correctly concluded that Claimant’s petition did not fit within the limited circumstances where the Board may assume original jurisdiction. However, as the Board did not dismiss Claimant’s petition with prejudice and advised her of several options to refile her petition in the proper manner, she could pursue those avenues. The Court affirmed the order of the Board dismissing Claimant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Employer’s motion to quash was denied as moot.
Affirmed.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
House Bill 183 is now Senate Bill 1094.
Previously, 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 has 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.
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 2087 – Ensuring that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are covered under workers’ compensation when injured during fundraising activities.
House Bill 1998 – Modernizing and Improving Medical Treatment in Workers’ Compensation
Reported out of the House Committee
House Bill 2049 – Raising Workers’ Compensation Burial Benefits.
NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
5/1/2026 – 5/31/2026
Grasso v. Monmouth County Sheriff’s Dept.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
A-2392-24; 2026 WL 1378130
Decided: 5/18/2026
Background:
The petitioner worked as a corrections officer for Respondent. He was injured while working in 2016 and underwent surgery in 2019. The petitioner was awarded 27.5% permanent disability of the right foot in a June 24, 2021 order. The petitioner filed a reopener application in 2022 alleging increased pain and disability. It was the petitioner’s position that the surgery made his condition worse. Both parties presented experts at trial. The petitioner did not wish to undergo additional surgery which was recommended by both experts. The WCJ found the petitioner established a worsening of the disability and sustained an increase in permanent disability of up to 35% of the right foot. Respondent appealed the Decision and argued the Judge erred in awarding an increase in disability when the petitioner refused offered medical treatment.
Holding:
The Court found that there was no basis to disturb the Judge’s finding. The Judge’s factual findings were supported by substantial credible evidence. Respondent further did not ask the Judge to issue a medical monitoring order. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the fee and cost award.
Affirmed.
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
