 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hrivnak v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board2/22/2002
Mark Hrivnak (Claimant) petitions for review of a July 25, 2001 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirming the decision of workers' compensation judge Francis J. DeSimone (WCJ DeSimone) to deny the Petition to Review Compensation Benefits (Review Petition) and the Petition for Assessment of Penalties (Penalty Petition) filed by Claimant. The question presented is whether R&L;Development (Employer) is entitled to a credit under section 204(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act), as amended by Act 44 of 1993, for the value of unemployment compensation benefits received by Claimant concurrent with workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant sustained a work-related lower back injury on January 28, 1993, for which he received benefits pursuant to a Notice of Compensation Payable. (WCJ Coffroth's Findings of Fact, No. 1.) On March 9, 1995, Claimant sought a reinstatement of benefits, alleging that he was limited to modified duty with a resultant loss in wages. Employer filed an answer denying the allegations, and hearings were held before WCJ Frederick F. Coffroth (WCJ Coffroth). (WCJ Coffroth's Findings of Fact, Nos. 3-4.)
On October 26, 1996, while a decision on Claimant's reinstatement petition was pending, Claimant and counsel for the parties jointly executed a stipulation of facts and conclusions (Stipulation). The parties agreed to present the Stipulation to WCJ Coffroth "with the understanding that [WCJ Coffroth] will enter an award of benefits based upon the Stipulation." (Stipulation at , R.R. at 25a; WCJ Coffroth's Findings of Fact, No. 5; WCJ Coffroth's Conclusions of Law, No. 3.) WCJ Coffroth subsequently incorporated the Stipulation in his decision, adopting the findings and conclusions therein as his own. (WCJ Coffroth's Findings of Fact, No. 5; WCJ Coffroth's Conclusions of Law, No. 2.) Then, in a November 6, 1996 order, WCJ Coffroth granted Claimant's reinstatement petition and directed Employer to make payments to Claimant as "specified in the Stipulation." (WCJ Coffroth's Order, R.R. at 20a.)
In setting forth the compensation owed Claimant, the Stipulation stated that, subsequent to the January 28, 1993 work accident, Claimant was laid off work during various periods of time and returned to work during various periods of time. As a result of all the periods of lay-off, Claimant was entitled to total disability benefits in the amount of $37,314.91, of which Claimant had received $13,832.73 since the accident. Also since the accident, and specifically after August 31, 1993, Claimant had received unemployment compensation benefits totaling $16,473.60. (See Stipulation at -8, R.R. at 22a-24a.)
Paragraph 9 of the Stipulation then provided:
Deducting the compensation paid as referred to above in the amount of $13,832.73 plus the employment compensation credit in the amount of $16[,]473.60, the Claimant is entitled to receive additional workmen's compensation benefits in the total amount of $7,008.58. (Stipulation at , R.R. at 24a.) (Emphasis added.) Neither party appealed WCJ Coffroth's 1996 decision.
On April 13, 1999, Claimant filed his Review Petition seeking reimbursement for the unemployment compensation credit taken by Employer in 1996 and requesting nullification of paragraph 9 of the Stipulation. In addition, Claimant filed a Penalty Petition alleging that Employer's failure to reimburse Claimant constituted a violation of the Act. Claimant based these Petitions on our supreme court's decision in Lykins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (New Castle Foundry), 552 Pa. 1, 713 A.2d 77 (1998). In Lykins, the court overturned a decision by this court applying amended section 204(a) to
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|