 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wallace v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board9/12/2005
at issue reference a 1994 injury date, and the record contains no request for any ruling with respect to such an injury. Therefore, the did not err by failing to address Claimant's 1994 neck injury.
(R.R. 189a-190a)(citations omitted)
In its decision granting Claimant's petition for reconsideration, the Board amended its position as follows:
With respect to Claimant's request for a reinstatement of benefits related to his 1994 work injury, the operative Bureau document for the 1994 injury is the Supplemental Agreement reinstating his benefits effective September 7, 1995. Because [Employer] never obtained a suspension or termination of Claimant's benefits for the 1994 injury, [Employer] is under a continuing obligation to pay Claimant benefits for this injury. Therefore, the issue raised by Claimant's Petition to Reinstate Compensation Benefits for his 1994 injury is moot.
(R.R. 209a)(citation omitted)
Employer contends that pursuant to Section 413(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง771, the WCJ may look beyond the relief requested and take appropriate action based on the evidence submitted; in other words, the form of the petition is not controlling. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp./CBS v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Burger), 838 A.2d 831 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Employer suggests that although its petition to terminate only referenced Claimant's 2001 back injury, Claimant's petition to reinstate benefits for the 1994 neck injury placed the termination of those benefits squarely at issue before the WCJ.
In this case, we cannot agree with Employer that its petition to terminate benefits for the 2001 back injury was sufficient to likewise terminate benefits for the 1994 injury. We agree generally that the form of the petition is not controlling, however, that practice has been limited to those instances where the facts warrant relief to the claimant. Coover Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Browning-Ferris Inds. o f Delaware Valley), 591 A.2d 347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). To the contrary, more significance is given the form of the petition filed by the employer, and we have held that the WCJ is only empowered to grant the relief actually requested by the employer. Id. The greater responsibility is placed on the employer to ensure that a claimant is given full notice of the specific relief sought. Id.
In this case, Employer's petition sought to terminate benefits only for the 2001 injury. Claimant was not provided any notice via the petition to terminate benefits that Employer was also seeking to terminate benefits for the 1994 neck injury. Thus, while the form of the petition is not controlling, we cannot agree with Employer that pleading formalities do not apply when two separate injuries are at issue. To hold otherwise would deprive Claimant of due process.
Furthermore, the record clearly evidences that the 1995 supplemental agreement was still effective with respect to the 1994 neck injury. Sheridan. Employer did not at any time seek to modify, suspend or terminate benefits based on Claimant's return to work. Because Claimant's right to benefits for the 1994 injury remained unchanged since 1995, Claimant's petition to reinstatement benefits was not properly before the WCJ for disposition. Id. We therefore must agree with the Board that Employer is under a continuing obligation to pay Claimant benefits for his 1994 work injury until its obligation is appropriately terminated.
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the Board's order to the extent that it failed to order Employer to reinstate benefits for the 1994 neck injury as of February 22, 2002, the date that Claimant was laid off. The Board's order is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|