Case Studies

Simko v. WCAB (United States Steel Corporation – Edgar Thomason Works), September 5, 2014. Commonwealth Court Decision (Claimant determined not to be within the course and scope of his employment) Joseph Simko (Claimant) petitions for review of the April 22, 2014, order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) reversing the decision of a

Keene v. WCAB (Ogden Corp.) 92 A.3d 897 (Pa. Commw. 2014). An employer may be entitled to a suspension of benefits if it proves that the injured worker, off of work and receiving disability benefits, has voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce. In 2014, the Commonwealth Court revisited a 2013 decision

Village At Palmerton Assisted Living, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Kilgallon), Respondent 9Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, June 12, 2015 Overview HOLDINGS: [1]-The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board erroneously interpreted the statutory requirements of § 306(a.2)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 511.2(1), for obtaining an automatic

Ace Wire Spring and Form Company v. WCAB (Walshesky). 93 A.3rd 923, (Pa. Cmwlth, 2014), 2104 WL 2576059, filed June 10, 2014 In this case, the employer had appealed, contending that Mr. Walshesky was not in the course and scope of his employment when the injury occurred. The claim petition

Walter Wetzel vs. WCAB (Parkway Service Station), 92 A.3rd 130, 2014 WL 2187363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) filed May 27, 2014, In this case, the deceased claimant had attempted to stop a fleeing thief and was struck by the thief’s vehicle and dragged some distance. He suffered traumatic brain injury. The

Anderson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (F.O. Transp. & Uninsured Emplr. Guar. Fund), 111 A.3d 238 Decided: March 10, 2015 Overview Issue: Whether a claimant’s disability benefits were properly suspended on the basis that his earning power exceeded his average weekly wage (AWW). Holding: 1. Claimant’s AWW could not be calculated