 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merchant v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board9/1/2000
BR>
We affirmed the Board's order awarding Burr Pennsylvania benefits as a supplement to the primary award of benefits under the Ohio workers' compensation system, holding that
ecause Claimant is a resident of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth has a substantial interest in his welfare and subsistence as a disabled worker, and this interest is promoted by supplementing those benefits awarded by the Ohio Industrial Commission. [Thomas v. Washington Gas and Light, 448 U.S. 261 (1980).] As a resident injured while working in Pennsylvania, Claimant remains entitled to all compensation and medical benefits available under the Act, regardless of where Employer is insured.
Neff, 624 A.2d at 733. Further, we held that nothing in the language of Section 305.2(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง411.2(b), permits an employer to enter into a future agreement with an employee to vary the amount of compensation to be paid. We stated that, " o hold otherwise would permit employers to require applicants and employees to waive statutory rights to obtain benefits under the Act." Id. at 732.
TSL contends that Section 322 represents a dramatic departure from the pre-amendment interpretation of the Act as set forth in Neff. To reiterate, TSL argues that Section 322 prohibits the payment of any additional benefits to a claimant who received workers' compensation pursuant to the law of another state. Further, it alleges that this provision is consistent with the general policy concerns underlying the 1993 amendments, which were to limit the cost of workers' compensation in Pennsylvania.
In the alternative, TSL argues that we should simply affirm the Board's decision that Section 322 of the Act merely prohibits Claimant from receiving any Pennsylvania benefits during any period that he has received West Virginia benefits. To reiterate, the Board, noting that Claimant received compensation benefits from West Virginia from August 16 to September 8, 1995, concluded that although he was precluded from receiving benefits in Pennsylvania for that time period, he was eligible to receive benefits in Pennsylvania after September 8, 1995. Thus, TSL contends in the alternative that we should rule that Claimant is not entitled to any Pennsylvania benefits during any period that he actually received benefits under the laws of West Virginia. TSL argues that, to rule otherwise, would render Section 322 a nullity.
Claimant argues that Section 322 does not bar an injured claimant from asserting a claim for benefits in Pennsylvania, even if he has filed a claim in any other state. He contends that Section 322 merely prohibits the simultaneous receipt of benefits; it does not forever bar a Pennsylvania citizen from receiving the benefits and protections afforded under the Act.
Further, Claimant alleges that the 1993 amendments to Section 322 were designed to prevent double recovery for a single injury. He contends that the prohibition against concurrent receipt of benefits under the laws of Pennsylvania and another state should be interpreted to carry out the legislative intent, while promoting the humanitarian goals underlying the Act. See Hoffman v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Westmoreland Hosp.), 559 Pa. 655, 741 A.2d 1286 (1999). Claimant notes that, once it became apparent that he was no longer receiving benefits from West Virginia and, thus, was entitled to receive Pennsylvania benefits, TSL paid him disability benefits from February 17 to March 11, 1997. He contends that adopting TSL's interpretation of Section 322 would add unnecessary and unauthorized restrictions to a claimant's right to benefits under the Act and would prevent equal application of the Act to all citiz
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.
|
|