Zercher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/11/2002
Mauritia Zercher petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed in part a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision granting Zercher's claim, reinstatement, and penalty petitions but refusing to actually award Zercher penalties. We affirm.
On January 3, 1989, Zercher sustained a work-related injury to her left ankle during the course and scope of her employment with Andreas Hermantzis t/a Keystone Diner (Keystone). Pursuant to a notice of compensation payable, Zercher received benefits in the amount of $171.73 per week. On October 4, 1993, Zercher resumed working, with restrictions, with a different employer, and her benefits were suspended pursuant to a supplemental agreement.
Zercher, on or about July 3, 1995, filed a petition to reinstate compensation benefits alleging that as of May 31, 1995, she became totally disabled when she was laid off from her current job with the Community Action Program (CAP). Keystone filed an answer denying these allegations. The WCJ, after finding that Zercher had not established that her diminished earning power was solely the result of her work-related injuries while working for Keystone, denied Zercher's reinstatement petition. Zercher appealed, and the Board, by its October 1, 1998 order and opinion, vacated the decision and remanded the case to the WCJ to make additional findings on whether or not Zercher's wage loss was causally related, even partially, to her work injury, or whether it was based on other factors. The Board also directed the WCJ to make a determination based upon this Court's decisions in Pan Building Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Thompson), 698 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), and Trumbull v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Helen Mining Co.), 683 A.2d 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), concerning a claimant's entitlement to the rebuttable presumption that work-related injuries are causing claimant's present loss of earnings, thereby warranting the reinstatement of benefits unless employer successfully rebuts this presumption.
Prior to the Board's opinion, Zercher, on or about September 17, 1998, filed another petition to reinstate compensation alleging that as of August 28, 1998, she became totally disabled when she was laid off from her current job from May 30, 1996 to September 3, 1997, and from May 29, 1998 to the present.
Keystone again filed an answer denying the allegations of Zercher's reinstatement petition. Subsequent to the issuance of the Board's opinion, on or about March 18, 1999, Zercher filed another petition to reinstate compensation alleging that as of January 22, 1999, she had unpaid medical bills and was experiencing a deterioration in her condition. Keystone filed an answer denying these allegations.
On or about July 19, 1999, Zercher filed a claim petition alleging that she had sustained a work-related fractured left ankle on January 3, 1989, during the course and scope of her employment with Keystone and requesting full disability benefits for the period from May 31, 1999 to the present. Keystone filed an answer denying these allegations. On or about August 2, 1999, Zercher filed a penalty petition alleging that Keystone's insurance carrier had refused to pay medical bills for treatment of a condition caused or aggravated by her work-related injury.
Keystone again filed an answer denying Zercher's allegations. Additionally, on or about August 2, 1999, Zercher filed another claim petition alleging that on January 3, 1989, while in the course and scope of her employment with Keystone, she had sustained a work-related fractured left ankle along with an aggravation of a back condition. On or about
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|