| A Summary of Recent Pennsylvania | | | | |
| | | | 3. WORKERS COMPENSATION |
| Appellate Court Decisions & Rule Changes | | | | |
| | | | 3.1. RETIREMENT |
| REPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH AUGUST 1 2006 | | | | |
| | | | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
| PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS | | | | |
| | | | *Pries v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board |
| 1. CIVIL LITIGATION | | | | (Verizon Pennsylvania), No. 1870 C.D. 2005 |
| | | | (July 25, 2006) |
| 1.1. AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE | | | | |
| | | | Holding:Affirming its decision in County of |
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania | | | | Allegheny (Dept. of Public Works) v. Workers |
| | | | Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d |
| *Santorella v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., | | | | 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), the Court holds that, |
| 2006 PA Super 202 (July 31, 2006) | | | | in order for disability compensation to |
| | | | continue following retirement, a claimant |
| Holding:An individual who owns a registered, | | | | must show that he or she is seeking |
| uninsured motor vehicle in a state other | | | | employment after retirement and that he was |
| than Pennsylvania is precluded from | | | | forced into retirement because of his |
| receiving first party medical benefits under | | | | work-related injury. It is the claimants |
| a policy issued to another member of the | | | | burden to show that he or she has not |
| individuals household. In this case, | | | | withdrawn from the entire work force. |
| plaintiff David Santorella, Jr., owned an | | | | |
| uninsured car registered in California. The | | | | 3.2. PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT |
| Superior Court denied the plaintiff first | | | | |
| party benefits under 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1714 | | | | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
| because the word registered is not qualified | | | | |
| by the words in this Commonwealth in the | | | | *Huddy v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board |
| statute, we refuse to read into the section | | | | (U.S. Air), No. 1031 C.D. 2005 (August 1, |
| an exception it does not explicitly declare | | | | 2006) |
| | | | |
| *Wheeler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance | | | | Holding:A Notice of Compensation Payable is |
| Co., 2006 PA Super 197 (July 31, 2006) | | | | properly amended to include depression and |
| | | | anxiety when a claimant proves that the work |
| Holding:An individual whose motor vehicle | | | | injury was a substantial contributing factor |
| insurance policy on which he or she is a | | | | to the psychological injury/diagnosis. |
| named insured does not provide income loss, | | | | |
| may not recover first party income loss | | | | 3.3. SUBROGATION |
| benefits from the insurance policy covering | | | | |
| the motor vehicle he or she was driving at | | | | *Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| the time of the accident. | | | | |
| | | | *Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Co., |
| 1.2. DAMAGES | | | | 2006 PA Super 201 (July 31, 2006) |
| | | | |
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania | | | | Holding:A settlement agreement, which |
| | | | apportions a settlement between an injured |
| *Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia | | | | workers claim and the workers spouses loss of |
| Gas Co. of Pa., 2006 PA Super 164 (July 7, | | | | consortium claim, will not be overturned when |
| 2006) | | | | it is adjudicated by the trial court based |
| | | | upon an evidentiary hearing and the execution |
| Holding:A utility company is considered to be | | | | of a settlement agreement. In this case, the |
| in the business of supplying information when | | | | facts demonstrate that the trial court |
| acting in compliance with the Pennsylvania | | | | attempted to assure that the apportionment |
| One Call System and is therefore subject to | | | | was fair and consistent with Darr |
| Section 552(2) of the Restatement (Second) of | | | | Construction Co. v. Workmens Compensation |
| Torts. In addition, the Court adopts Section | | | | Appeal Board (Walker), 522 Pa. 400, 715 A.2d |
| 552(3) for negligent misrepresentation cases | | | | 1075 (1998). |
| that arise under the One Call Act. Finally, | | | | |
| the Court holds that the economic loss | | | | 3.4. WAIVER OF ISSUES ON APPEAL |
| doctrine which states that no cause of | | | | |
| action exists for negligence that results | | | | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
| solely in economic damages unaccompanied by | | | | |
| physical injury or property damage does not | | | | *McGaffin v. Workers Compensation Appeal |
| automatically apply when only economic losses | | | | Board (Manatron, Inc.), No. 2168 C.D. 2005 |
| are alleged. Rather, if, in a negligent | | | | (July 19, 2006) |
| misrepresentation claim, (1) the defendant | | | | |
| was in the business of supplying information, | | | | Holding:Because the claimant failed to raise |
| and (2) it was foreseeable that the | | | | preserve the issue before the Workers |
| information would be used and relied upon by | | | | Compensation Judge of whether an impairment |
| third parties, the claim may proceed under | | | | rating under Section 3006(a.2) of the Act, 77 |
| Section 552 of the Restatement, and the | | | | P.S. 511.2(1), precludes a termination of |
| economic loss doctrine is inapplicable. | | | | benefits, the Court declines to address the |
| | | | issue. |
| 1.3. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS & CIVIL | | | | |
| PROCEDURE/PLEADINGS | | | | NEW PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE |
| | | | |
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania | | | | PA.R.CIV.P. 204.11 (FORMAT OF PLEADINGS AND |
| | | | OTHER LEGAL PAPERS) |
| *Rostock v. Anzalone, 2006 PA Super 191 (July | | | | |
| 26, 2006) | | | | *Effective February 1, 2007, all pleadings, |
| | | | motions and other legal papers must conform |
| Holding:A complaint may be dismissed under | | | | to the following requirements: |
| the doctrine of lis pendens based upon the | | | | |
| pendency of a prior action or an agreement | | | | 1. Documents must be on 8-1/2 by 11 inch |
| for alternative dispute resolution. The mere | | | | paper |
| filing of a second complaint, identical in | | | | |
| all respects to the first with the sole | | | | 2. Documents shall be on white paper (except |
| exception that the second complaint alleged, | | | | dividers and similar sheets) |
| This is a medical malpractice action, does | | | | |
| not make the defense of lis pendens | | | | 3. The first sheet shall contain a 3-inch |
| unavailable. | | | | space at the top for court stampings, filing |
| | | | notices, etc. |
| *McSorley v. Deger, 2006 PA Super 200 (July | | | | |
| 31, 2006) | | | | 4. Text must be double-spaced |
| | | | |
| Holding:In a claim alleging lack of informed | | | | 5. Quotations more than two lines long may be |
| consent, it is a jury question whether the | | | | indented and single spaced |
| doctors actions were within the terms of the | | | | |
| consent provided by the patient. In this | | | | 6. Margins must be at least one inch on all |
| case, the pre-surgery consent form permitted | | | | four sides |
| the physician to perform such surgical or | | | | |
| other procedures as are necessary and | | | | 7. Letter shall be clear and legible, and no |
| desirable in the event of unforeseen | | | | smaller than 12 point in size |
| conditions that necessitate an extension of | | | | |
| the original procedure. | | | | 8. Lettering shall be on only one side of a |
| | | | page (except for exhibits and supporting |
| 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE | | | | documents) |
| | | | |
| 2.1. FORGERY | | | | 9. Documents must be firmly bound. |
| | | | |
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania | | | | NEW JERSEY STATE COURT DECISION |
| | | | |
| *De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. | | | | WORKERS COMPENSATION -- INTOXICATION |
| The Urban Partnership, LLC, 2006 PA Super 169 | | | | |
| (July 12, 2006) | | | | *Supreme Court of New Jersey |
| | | | |
| Holding:Generally, when an allegation of | | | | *Tluma v. High Bridge Stone, No. A-69-05 |
| forgery is raised in this case, it was | | | | (July 19, 2006) |
| alleged that the document conferring | | | | |
| jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was forged the | | | | Holding:In order for the statutory defense of |
| party claiming forgery has the burden of | | | | intoxication to bar the recovery of workers |
| proving the existence of a forgery by clear | | | | compensation benefit, an employer must prove |
| and convincing evidence. Because the | | | | by a preponderance of the evidence that the |
| allegation of forgery raises an issue of | | | | employees work-related injuries were caused |
| fact, resolution of the issue will turn upon | | | | solely by intoxication. |
| the courts assessment of the witnesses | | | | |
| credibility; however, there is no legal | | | | Remember, visit Pennsylvania Legal Research |
| requirement that a party alleging forgery | | | | Links, and make your home page for |
| present a handwriting expert to support the | | | | Pennsylvania research. |
| claim. | | | | |