 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galloway v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board8/4/2000
uch time as she provided her current residential address, she was correct in denying penalties. The Board then admonished Claimant for her behavior, noting that failure to provide such information would place her in direct violation of a WCJ's order and subject her to further action.
Both Claimant and Employer now appeal to this Court. In essence, Claimant argues that there is no specific requirement under the Act that she provide her residential address; thus, there was no basis under the Act for Employer's unilateral suspension of benefits and she is therefore entitled to penalties.
At the center of this dispute is the LIBC-760 Form. Employer asserts that when our Legislature passed Act 57, it created new reporting requirements for employees who file for or are receiving workers' compensation benefits. It was an effort, Employer argues, to facilitate management of claims and to reduce fraud within the workers' compensation system. Part of these reporting requirements was the obligation to complete the LIBC-760 Form.
Employer contends that by failing to completely fill out the Form, Claimant is deliberately attempting to obstruct Employer from acquiring information necessary for the administration of her claim and the determination of whether she is entitled to compensation. See Section 311.1(a)(7) of Act 57. Further, Claimant is in violation of Section 311.1(c) of Act 57 which imposes an obligation of cooperation with the insurer in an investigation regarding employment or physical condition. Additionally, Employer notes, Section 311.1(e) of Act 57 specifically provides that a claimant has a continuing obligation to supply relevant information. As Claimant's residential address is vital to Employer's ability to continue to monitor her status and entitlement to benefits, Employer argues that it properly suspended her benefits pursuant to Section 311.1(g) of Act 57 (permitting the suspension of compensation benefits until a completed verification form is returned).
In response, Claimant asserts that the Act is silent as to whether the address provided must be "the place where the employee is physically present." (Claimant's brief at page 15). Claimant goes on to state, " here is nothing to prevent an employee from entering a P.O. Box as her address...And, in this respect, there is nothing which prevents [Claimant] from using her attorney's address as the address at which she wishes to receive her mail." (Id. at pages 15- 16).
With regard to Section 311.1(e) of Act 57, relating to the accurate completion of verification forms, Claimant asserts that the focus is a claimant's change in condition or employment, not a claimant's residential address. As for the penalty provisions in Section 311.1(g) of Act 57, Claimant argues that Employer's challenge is to the accuracy of the information provided and did not constitute grounds for suspension of her benefits.
This Court has recognized that in order for the imposition of penalties to be appropriate, a violation of the Act or of the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Act must appear in the record. Moore v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Reading Paperboard Corp.), 676 A.2d 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 546 Pa. 658, 684 A.2d 559 (1996); Glagola v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 428 A.2d 1016 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). However, even if a violation of the Act is apparent on the record, the imposition of a penalty is not required; rather, the imposition of a penalty is at the discretion of the WCJ. Moore.
Here, we are asked to decide whether the Board properly affirmed the WCJ's decision not to award penalties. The record indicates that
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|