Workers' Comp In-Cites
Welcome to the latest edition of Schaff & Young's Workers' Comp In-Cites. Designed to provide our clients with practical insight, Workers' Comp In-Cites outlines recent developments in Pennsylvania workers' compensation law and explains how those decisions impact our clients and their cases. Barbara Young, Michael Schaff and the other attorneys at Schaff & Young, P.C. are always available to discuss these cases – or any other questions or concerns you might have. Just give us a call at (215) 988-0090 or send an email to We look forward to hearing from you.
A Civil Litigant May Not Challenge a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Determination that an Entity Is a Worker’s Statutory Employer
In John T. Gallagher Timber Transfer v. Hamilton, the Commonwealth Court ruled that a defendant in a civil case cannot challenge a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s separate determination that an entity was the plaintiff’s statutory employer responsible for payment of compensation.

October 2007 Edition
Volume 1
Number 10

Schaff & Young, P.C.
One South Broad Street
Suite 1650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
P: 215-988-0090
F: 215-988-0091

It’s OK to File a URO for a Medical Only Claim
An employer may seek utilization review of medical care when it acknowledges a work-related injury, even if the employer issues a Notice of Compensation Denial disputing the employee’s disability status. That is the decision of the Commonwealth Court in Armstrong v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Haines & Kibblehouse, Inc.).

A Provider That Does Not Submit Records Cannot Challenge a URO
Consistent with the Act and the Bureau’s Regulations, the Commonwealth Court has ruled that a Workers’ Compensation Judge lacks jurisdiction to review the reasonableness and necessity of a Claimant’s medical treatment when the medical provider fails to provide medical records to the Utilization Review Organization, even though the URO issued a report prepared by a peer review physician. The Court issued this decision in Stafford v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Advanced Placement Services).

A WCJ May Amend an NCP when Deciding A Termination Petition
In a decision likely to generate further litigation, the Commonwealth Court has ruled that a Workers’ Compensation Judge may amend the description of a Claimant’s injury (as stated on a Notice of Compensation Payable) when ruling upon a termination petition – even though the Claimant never petitioned to have the condition recognized as a work injury. Judge Pellegini filed a dissenting opinion in this case, Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. and PMA Group v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hill), arguing that an NCP cannot be amended in a termination petition unless a separate Petition for Review has been filed.