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.

Notice of Repetitive Injury Must be Given in 120 Days

The 120 day notice period for a cumulative or repetitive injury begins to run on the last day of aggravation (generally, the last day of work) or from the date claimant should have reasonably known that the condition was work-related, according to the Commonwealth Court in Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Holmes).

August 2010 Edition
Volume IV
Number 7

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

Three Year Statute of Limitations to Correct an NCP

According to the Commonwealth Court in Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), a party seeking to either correct a Notice of Compensation Payable, or to add additional consequential injuries to a claimant's compensable, work-related injuries under Section 413 of the Act, must file a petition within three years of the date of the most recent payment of compensation.

IMEs Don’t Automatically “Expire” or Become “Stale”

In Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Guyders), the Commonwealth Court ruled that there is no set time frame, e.g., 6 months in this case, after which the results of an IME become “stale” and cannot be used to establish whether work is available to an injured worker.

Contractor on the Hook When Subcontractor Doesn’t Maintain WC Insurance

When an entity is deemed a worker's statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act, a claimant need not satisfy the requirements of Section 302(b). Under Section 302(a), a contractor who subcontracts all or any part of a contract and his insurer are liable for payment of compensation to employees of a subcontractor unless the subcontractor maintains workers' compensation insurance. That’s the ruling by the Commonwealth Court in Six L's Packing Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Williamson).

Recovery Fees Recoverable from the Supersedeas Fund

In Commonwealth, Dept. of Labor & Industry, v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Old Republic Insurance Co.), the Commonwealth Court held that recovery fees incurred by an employer pursuant to Section 319 of the Act in order to recover the proceeds of a third-party settlement are compensation as defined by Section 443(a) of the Act and are recoverable from the Supersedeas Fund.

Pension Offsets for Commonwealth Employees

Because the Commonwealth is both the entity funding an employee's pension benefits and the entity paying the worker's workers' compensation benefits, and all of the funding comes from the State Treasury, the Commonwealth is entitled to an offset against the claimant's pension benefits for that portion of the pension that it funded. This is the ruling of the Commonwealth Court in Gaughan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania State Police).

Focus on Where Claimant Works When Determining Jurisdiction

The Commonwealth Court ruled in Williams v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pohl Transportation) that, when determining whether a claimant may receive benefits under Section 305.2(d)(4)(iii) of the Act for an out-of-state injury, a WCJ must focus on the nature of claimant's employment, in particular whether claimant spent a "substantial part of his working time" in Pennsylvania.