 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Joseph Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board3/12/1999
Submitted: December 19, 1997
St. Joseph Hospital appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which granted Judith Ladd's (claimant) claim petition for specific loss benefits pursuant to Section 306(c)(23) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act), thereby entitling claimant to receive both total disability benefits and specific loss benefits concurrently. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1988 while working as a nurse's aide for St. Joseph Hospital (employer). A Notice of Compensation Payable was issued and claimant began receiving temporary total disability benefits in accordance therewith. As a result of her back injury, claimant subsequently underwent two lumbar laminectomies, which eventually caused her to suffer from chronic adhesive lumbosacral arachnoiditis. Following the onset of claimant's arachnoiditis condition, she lost the use of both of her legs for all practical intents and purposes.
On March 1, 1993, claimant filed a claim petition seeking specific loss benefits in addition to her ongoing total disability benefits. Employer filed a timely answer to the petition as well as a modification/suspension petition. On August 25, 1993, the Board entered an order which: (1) remanded the case to a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to conduct hearings on the two petitions; and (2) directed the record to be returned to the Board for a decision upon its completion.
During the hearings that followed, claimant testified to the extent of her disabilities and her unsuccessful attempt to return to work to a position created by employer. In addition, the parties stipulated on the record at one of the hearings that claimant had lost the use of her legs for all practical intents and purposes, and that claimant's back injury and the loss of her legs constituted two separate sources of disability. R.R. 70a - 71a. Finally, both parties relied upon the same medical expert, Dr. Robert Cohen, and his letter summaries of claimant's condition were entered into evidence as joint exhibits.
Based upon the evidence of record, the Board granted claimant's petition for specific loss benefits and denied employer's modification/suspension petition. The Board awarded claimant, inter alia, 820 weeks of specific loss benefits (410 weeks for each leg) and held that she was entitled to receive such concurrently with her total disability benefits. The matter was then remanded to the WCJ for the calculation of benefits. The present appeal followed. On appeal, employer argues that the Board erred in awarding concurrent benefits for specific loss and total disability. We agree.
The law in this area was set forth in Acme Markets, Inc. v. WCAB (Hopiak), 562 A.2d 419 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989), alloc. denied, 525 Pa. 648, 581 A.2d 574 (1990), as follows:
"It is well established that a claimant for workmen's compensation benefits is entitled to total disability benefits, in addition to benefits for specific loss, where there is a destruction, derangement, or deficiency in organs of other parts of the body resulting from the same injury. Truck Lubricating & Washing Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 54 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 495, 421 A.2d 1251 (1980). Further, the disability must be separate and distinct from that which normally follows a specific loss injury. Crucible, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pope), 120 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 564, 549 A.2d 258 (1988). In such situations, which fall squarely within the provisions of Section 306(d), benefit payments for the total disability precede those awarded for the specific loss." 562 A.2d at 423.
I
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.
|
|