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.

Supreme Court Clarifies an Employer’s Right to Subrogation from a Third Party Settlement

Unreimbursed payments to a claimant, made prior to settlement of the claimant's third party claim, and prior to the execution of a Third Party Settlement Agreement, constitute compensation later determined not be have been payable for purposes of reimbursement from the Supersedeas Fund. In addition, payments made by an employer/insurer during the grace period of Section 319 are compensation for purposes of reimbursement from the Supersedeas Fund. This Opinion, in Dept. of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Excelsior Insurance), clarifies that the right to subrogation applies to payments made during grace periods following settlement of third party claims.

December 2012 Edition
Volume VI
Number 9

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

Penalties Are Proper When a Carrier Fails to Pay All Interest Due and Fails to Pay Subrogated Medical Expenses

In Cleveland Brothers v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hazlett), the Commonwealth Court ruled that a WCJ may assess penalties against a carrier/third party administrator that (1) fails to pay the proper interest on a WCJ's Decision solely because the carrier erroneously relied upon the Bureau of Workers' Compensation's spreadsheet to determine the amount of interest owed, and (2) fails to reimburse a health insurer for its subrogation lien. Although the carrier claimed that it had not received the bills on the proper forms, the Court noted that subrogation payments are not repriced under the Act, and the requirement that bills be submitted on HCFA forms is directed toward providers, i.e., the entity that actually treated the claim, not insurers requesting subrogation.