 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Belinksy v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/17/2002
Claimant Diane Belinsky appeals from the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that denied her workers' compensation indemnity benefits despite affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) finding that she sustained a work-related injury for which she missed time from work. On appeal, this court must determine whether claimant's use of sick leave and vacation time while temporarily totally disabled precludes her from receiving workers' compensation benefits.
In June 1998, claimant sustained a work-related knee injury while employed by the State Correctional Institution at Retreat. Employer subsequently denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits. As a result, claimant used her sick leave and vacation time in order to receive wages while she was recuperating from the injury. Claimant returned to a light duty position in July 1998 without a loss of earnings.
At the hearing on her claim petition, claimant's attorney stated that she was seeking restoration of her sick leave and vacation time. Employer's attorney raised no objection to the form of relief requested. The WCJ found that claimant's injury was work-related and ordered employer to pay claimant's medical expenses and to restore the sick leave and vacation time that claimant used in connection with her work-related injury. The WCJ also ordered employer to pay claimant's attorney a sum equal to 20% of the workers' compensation benefits claimant would have received had she not used her sick leave and vacation time. Employer appealed to the Board, contending that the Workers' Compensation Act does not authorize the restoration of sick leave and vacation time. Employer also took issue with the WCJ's award of attorney's fees based on the value of benefits claimant would have received if her personal benefits had not been used. The Board found that the claim petition was properly granted, but agreed that the restoration of benefits was beyond the authority of the WCJ. It reversed that portion of the WCJ's order, but the Board affirmed the award of attorney's fees. The present appeal followed.
On appeal, claimant contends that the Board erred in failing to award her indemnity benefits during the period of time she was unable to work due to her work-related knee injury. It is undisputed that claimant sustained a work-related injury which caused her to miss work from June 11, 1998 through July 22, 1998. If claimant had not used her personal sick leave and vacation time while recuperating from her injury, there would be no question that she would be entitled to indemnity benefits. The issue then, is whether employer is relieved from its obligation to pay such benefits because claimant did not lose any wages as a result of her injury. Our Supreme Court's decision in Temple v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 445 Pa. 539, 285 A.2d 137 (1971) and its progeny establish that in these circumstances, employer is not relieved of its obligation to pay claimant the indemnity benefits due in connection with her work-related disability. See also Hartwell v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (McLean Trucking Co.), 507 A.2d 902, 904 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); Hildebrand v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fire Dep't/City of Reading), 532 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)
Employer does not here dispute the conclusion that the claim petition was properly granted, nor that claimant was entitled to an award of compensation for the time she was out of work. Its only response in this appeal is that claimant waived the right to such benefits because she sought only restoration of her sick leave and vacation time when she appeared before the WCJ. We disagree. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking total disability benef
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|