 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Erie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board10/18/2005
City of Erie (City) petitions for review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying the City's Petition to Review Compensation Benefits. We affirm.
The history of this case is as follows. On April 22, 1998, Jeffrey Annunziata (Claimant) sustained a work-related fracture to his right tibia plateau while in the course and scope of his employment as a police officer for the City. The City issued a Notice of Compensation Payable acknowledging Claimant's injury, but indicating that it would pay Claimant his full salary under the act commonly known as the Heart and Lung Act in lieu of paying him benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act). At the time of his injury, Claimant was working in concurrent employment as a security guard and automatic teller maintenance person. Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that he was entitled to workers' compensation benefits for his loss of earnings from his concurrent employment. By decision dated August 25, 2000, the WCJ determined that Claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits and denied the claim petition. The Board affirmed.
On appeal to this Court, we reversed. City of Erie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Annunziata), 799 A.2d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), aff'd in part, vacated and remanded in part, 575 Pa. 594, 838 A.2d 598 (2003). We determined that a claimant who suffers an injury in the course of his duties, which is compensable by the Heart and Lung Act, can collect and retain benefits pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act for concurrent employment. Id. On appeal, our Supreme Court determined that while a claimant is entitled to seek workers' compensation benefits for concurrent employment, the Heart and Lung Act requires him to reimburse his employer for any benefits received. City of Erie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Annunziata), 575 Pa. 594, 838 A.2d 598 (2003) (Annunziata I). Thus, the Supreme Court vacated this portion of our decision and remanded for a calculation of benefits. Id.
Thereafter, the City filed a review petition seeking reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits already paid to Claimant. The WCJ found that because the City's request for supersedeas had been denied, the City was obligated to pay Claimant workers' compensation benefits pursuant to this Court's order. The WCJ determined that Employer's remedy was to seek reimbursement from the supersedeas fund rather than from Claimant. Accordingly, the WCJ denied the City's petition to review compensation benefits. On appeal, the Board affirmed.
The City now petitions for review with this Court. The City raises the issue of whether the WCJ and Board erred by not ordering Claimant to reimburse the City for workers' compensation benefits that he received at the same time he received Heart and Lung benefits from the City in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Annunziata I.
The City contends that the Supreme Court's decision requires Claimant to reimburse the City for past benefits paid. We disagree.
Section 443(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. §999(a), provides: If, in any case in which a supersedeas has been requested and denied under the provisions of the Section 413 or Section 430, payments of compensation are made as a result thereof and upon the final outcome of the proceedings, it is determined that such compensation was not, in fact, payable, the insurer who has made such payment shall be reimbursed therefor.
The supersedeas fund is a special fund in the State Treasury. Section 443(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. §999(b). The purpose of the fund is to provide a mean
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.
|
|