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.

Testimony Without Competent Foundation Is Not Competent

In Southwest Airlines/Cambridge Integrated Service v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (King), the Commonwealth Court ruled that testimony by a Claimant’s medical expert was not competent to prove that the cause of the Claimant’s disability was work-related because the expert had no knowledge about the Claimant’s prior head and neck injuries, history of headaches, dizziness, concentration problems, blurred vision, and other treatment.

January 2010 Edition
Volume IV
Number 1

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

Medical Expert Testimony Based on Claimant Testimony May Be Competent

The Commonwealth Court, in Lancaster General Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weber-Brown), ruled that the testimony of two medical experts, both opining that the Claimant’s loss of vision resulted from an infection contracted in the scope of her employment, constituted competent evidence to prove that the injury was work-related. The testimony was competent, although neither expert was able to review Claimant’s medical records, which were never found, and both experts based their testimony on Claimant’s consistent statements about how she contracted the infection.

Section 440 Contest Not Reasonable Without Proof of Violation

In Yespelkis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pulmonology Associates Incorporated and AmeriHealth Casualty), the Commonwealth Court was faced with a penalty petition filed by the employer. The Court, ruling on an issue of first impression, held that because there was no statutory basis for the petition, remanded the case for reconsideration of unreasonable contest attorney’s fees.