 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pahlawanian v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/19/2002
Maria Pahlawanian (Claimant) petitions for review from the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that denied Claimant's penalty petition.
Claimant, who was receiving compensation benefits, petitioned for penalties and alleged that the City of Philadelphia (Employer) violated the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) by refusing to pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses and by unilaterally suspending benefits. On May 14, 1998, the WCJ denied the petition and found that Claimant failed to present any evidence in support of the award of a penalty (May 14, 1998, Decision). On July 18, 2000, the Board affirmed.
On August 17, 2000, Claimant again petitioned for penalties and alleged that Employer failed to reimburse Claimant for reasonable and necessary medical expenses. At the WCJ hearing, Claimant's counsel admitted that the matters he would present in this proceeding before the WCJ were matters that would have been presented before. Notes of Testimony, October 2, 2000, at 9; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 52a. The WCJ denied the petition and concluded that the petition addressed matters that "could have and should have been addressed by Claimant in the earlier Penalty proceedings which were denied, and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, and not further appealed." WCJ's Decision, January 26, 2001, Conclusion of Law No. 1 at 3; R.R. at 9a. The Board affirmed.
Claimant contends that the Board committed an error of law when it denied her petition on the basis of res judicata.
Here, there is no dispute that the parties are the same. In the May 14, 1998, Decision and in the matter before this Court, the cause of action, a penalty petition, is identical. In both cases, Claimant seeks penalties for failure to pay medical expenses, which Claimant admits could have been or were raised at the first proceeding. Further, the capacity of the parties is the same. Claimant asserts that the current petition may not be barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the May 14, 1998, Decision was not decided on the merits because Claimant did not present any evidence. To the contrary, Claimant bore the burden of proving in the earlier petition that Employer violated the Act and did not meet the burden because in the course of twelve scheduled hearings, ten of which were continued, she presented no evidence to support the award of penalties. The May 14, 1998, Decision was a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, we affirm.
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2002, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
Page 1 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|