 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board11/7/2005
In this petition for review the City of Philadelphia (Employer) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that vacated and remanded a decision of a Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ Goodwin) who had determined that Employer owed compensation, interest, and penalties to Domenic Candito (Claimant) in the amount of $181,809.99. The Board concluded that the WCJ had erred in her calculation and directed the WCJ on remand to recalculate the compensation to which Claimant was entitled, including simple interest. The Board also directed the WCJ to recalculate the penalties she had imposed against the Employer for violations of Section 428 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ยง921. Section 428 requires employers to pay compensation to Claimants within thirty days of a Board order affirming a WCJ's award of benefits.
For the purposes of our review and consideration of the issues, we begin by noting that on May 25, 1995, WCJ Weinberg awarded Claimant specific loss benefits of $357,520 for the loss of use of his right arm and right leg. Following appeals to the Board and this Court, Employer sought review with the Supreme Court on August 16, 1999, and on September 8 also asked this Court to issue a supersedeas, which we denied. Claimant filed a penalty petition against Employer in October 25, 1999, asserting that in violation of Section 428, thirty days had passed since this court's decision affirming the Board, and Employer had still not paid Claimant. Employer also sought a supersedeas from the Supreme Court, but that Court denied both the supersedeas request and a petition for permission to appeal this Court's decision on December 28, 1999. On February 2, 2000, Employer sent a check to Claimant for $138,477.10 and a check to Claimant's attorney for $34,619.27, for a total of $173,096.37. However, Claimant filed a second penalty petition on February 14, 2000, asserting that (1) Employer had failed to pay him the full benefits to which he was entitled, and (2) Employer violated the Act again by failing to pay Claimant within thirty days of the Supreme Court's order denying the appeal and supersedeas. Claimant contemporaneously filed a Petition to Review Compensation Benefits, asserting that as of that date Employer had not complied with the WCJ's order by failing to pay the total amount of benefits owed in a lump sum.
After considering the two penalty petitions and the petition to review compensation benefits, WCJ Goodwin granted Claimant's petitions, concluding that Employer had violated the Act in three instances: First, by not paying the full lump sum amount of Claimant's compensation, the $357,520 specific loss benefits for Claimant's March 19, 1991 injuries, second, by failing to pay in a timely manner the correct compensation benefits as directed by this Court in its 1999 decision, and by again failing to pay the full amount within thirty days of the Supreme Court's order. Based upon these three failures of the Employer, WCJ Goodwin awarded three separate fifty percent penalties based upon the amount Employer owed Claimant at the time of each violation. WCJ Goodwin also concluded that Employer had unreasonably contested the petitions, and awarded Claimant attorneys fees. Employer appealed that decision. The board affirmed the WCJ's fifty percent penalty on the Employer for failure to pay Claimant within 30 days of this Court's decision affirming WCJ Weinberg. However, the Board reversed the WCJ's imposition of another penalty for the Employer's failure to pay Claimant within thirty days after the Supreme Court's order, because, the Board concluded, that penalty was duplicative and essentially impos
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|