 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merchant v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board9/1/2000
l bills, under the provisions of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act at the rate of $189.88 per week, and he would be entitled to total disability payments under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act at the rate of $248.06 per week. (Finding of Fact No. 33.)
Accordingly, the WCJ granted Claimant's claim petition against TSL, concluding that it was the responsible employer for purposes of workers' compensation benefits. Further, having determined that Claimant's claim petition was not barred by Section 322 of the Act, the WCJ denied TSL's motion to dismiss. Thus, the WCJ entered an order directing TSL to commence payment of total disability payments to Claimant in the amount of $248.06 per week effective August 16, 1995, less a credit for the West Virginia payments made to him of $189.88 per week from the date those payments commenced to the date those payments ceased.
The Board reversed those parts of the WCJ's decision and order that awarded benefits from August 16 to September 8, 1995 and found that Claimant's diabetes insipidus was work-related. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and order in all other respects. Claimant's and TSL's timely petitions for review to this Court followed.
On appeal, TSL alleges that the Board erred in applying and construing Section 322 of the Act. Claimant argues that the Board erred in concluding that Dr. Walczak's testimony that Claimant's diabetes insipidus was work-related was equivocal. We turn first to the Board's interpretation of Section 322 of the Act.
I.
As part of the 1993 amendments to the Act, the legislature amended Section 322 to prohibit the concurrent receipt of workers' compensation benefits under Pennsylvania law and the laws of another state for the same injury. In pertinent part, Section 322 provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any employe to receive compensation under this act if he is at the same time receiving workers' compensation under the laws of the Federal Government or any other state for the same injury. . . .
77 P.S. ยง677.
TSL argues that Section 322 should be construed to prohibit an employee from receiving any Pennsylvania benefits if he has already received benefits under the laws of another state. Thus, TSL contends that the claim petition here should have been dismissed.
In support of its position and for purposes of contrast, TSL cites a case from this Court decided prior to the effective date of the 1993 amendments to the Act: Robert M. Neff, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Burr), 624 A.2d 727 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). In Neff, the employer's principal place of business was Ohio, but the claimant worked for the employer solely at its Mars, Pennsylvania location. When the employer hired Burr, he signed an agreement providing that Ohio's Workers' Compensation Law was to be the exclusive remedy for any work-related injury claim. The employer did not carry Pennsylvania workers' compensation insurance and had not filed a certificate documenting coverage in another state.
When Burr was subsequently injured while working at the employer's Mars, Pennsylvania location, he began receiving workers' compensation benefits from Ohio. The claimant then filed a Pennsylvania petition for compensation, noting that he was receiving compensation under Ohio law, but seeking Pennsylvania jurisdiction over his claim and Pennsylvania benefits for his injury. The employer contested the petition, arguing that the claim should be denied because of the agreement providing that Ohio's compensation law was to be the exclusive remedy and Section 305.2(b) of the Act recognized such agreements. <
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|