SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Mack v. Pa. State Police
No. 9 M.D. 2021
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: October 23, 2025
The Commonwealth Court recognized a private right of action for H&L Act beneficiaries to recover funds paid to an employer after a wrongful assertion of a subrogation lien.
Martin Mack, deceased, was working as a Pennsylvania State Trooper when his squad car was involved in an accident with another driver on November 30, 2018. Mack filed a claim for benefits under the Heart and Lung Act (53 P.S. § 637) and a tort suit against the other driver. Mack’s petition was granted and the tort action was subsequently settled. On March 19, 2020, counsel for the Pennsylvania State Police sent Mack a letter asserting the subrogation lien under Section 319 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, demanding payment of Mack’s tort settlement funds. Mack complied, remitting $20,826.58 to PSP, and proceeded to file a complaint seeking recovery of the same, arguing that the lien cannot be asserted against H&L beneficiaries. PSP filed preliminary objections to the complaint, arguing that the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, under which subrogation of H&L benefits for injuries arising from on-the-job car accidents is barred, does not provide a private right of action in the event of wrongful assertion of the lien.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court decided that such a private cause of action does exist. Mack, as a recipient of H&L benefits (as opposed to WCA benefits) is within the class of people for whom the legislature intended continued protection. The legislature did not indicate any intention to grant nor deny such a right, and a private right of action was deemed consistent with the MVFRL’s purpose. With two out of three factors in Mack’s favor and the third one neutral, Mack’s claim was allowed to proceed over PSP’s preliminary objections.
Takeaway
Employers and insurers need to be mindful of whether a successful claimant in work related motor vehicle cases recovered under the WCA or H&L Act, as they do not have a subrogation lien against other recoveries by H&L beneficiaries.
Questions about this case can be directed to Charles Nutaitis, at 610.332.7020 or cnutaitis@tthlaw.com.
Factory Grinding Services v. Hanna (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1376 C.D. 2024
Decided: November 7, 2025
Section 413 of the Act authorizes a WCJ to amend the description of injury in an NCP through granting a review petition.
Facts
Claimant was injured in a work-related motor vehicle accident. At the time of the injury Employer was insured by both State Workers’ Insurance Fund (“SWIF”) and Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company (“Berkshire”). Following the incident, SWIF issued a medical-only NCP indicating “no physical injury,” whereas, Berkshire issued an NTCP for a “skull contusion.” Claimant eventually underwent back surgery, after which Berkshire began paying indemnity benefits. Meanwhile, SWIF paid some of the medical expenses that Claimant incurred three days after the incident, including the ambulance and emergency room bills as well as two prescriptions, but it denied all subsequent medical bills based on its understanding that Claimant did not sustain any physical injuries. Berkshire then filed Review, Modification, and Joinder Petitions seeking to amend the injury description and have SWIF reimburse fifty percent of benefits paid, as Employer was insured by both SWIF and Berkshire on the date of the incident.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s decision, which affirmed the WCJ’s Decision granting Berkshire’s Petitions and ordered SWIF to reimburse Berkshire for fifty percent of the medical and wage loss benefits paid to Claimant. The Court reasoned that the WCJ’s Decision was proper because the Act does not require the WCJ to formally amend an NCP when it is materially incorrect. Moreover, a WCJ’s power to amend an NCP is not limited to instances where it is alleged that a material mistake existed at the time an NCP was issued, rather, Section 413 of the Act authorizes a WCJ to scrutinize the accepted description of injury, as a claimant’s condition evolves over time.
Takeaway
The WCJ’s acceptance of medical testimony and granting of a Review Petition essentially operates as a corrective modification of an NCP, rendering a separate finding of material incorrectness unnecessary.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267.861.7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Constr. Co. v. Kenneth Wilson (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
2025 LX 554627
Decided: Dec. 10, 2025
If an employee is laid off while working under restrictions due to a work injury, the employee is still entitled to a rebuttable presumption of ongoing disability, even if that lay off is unrelated to the injury.
Facts
The Employer laid the Claimant off from work while the Claimant was working in a modified duty capacity due to a work injury. The Employer was accommodating the Claimant despite one of the Claimant’s treating doctors having released him to full duty and despite it being a denied claim. The layoff impacted multiple employees, and the Claimant signed paperwork confirming that the layoff was not related to his work injury. The Claimant then filed a Claim Petition seeking medical and disability benefits from the date of the layoff and ongoing.
Holding
The Claimant prevailed at all levels. The Commonwealth Court relied upon Teledyne McKay v. WCAB (Osmolinski), 688 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) for the premise that when a claimant returns to work with restrictions and is subsequently laid off, the claimant is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the work disability continues. It was not enough that the layoff had nothing to do with the work injury. At the end of the day, the Claimant was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of disability that the Employer failed to overcome with its medical expert’s testimony.
Takeaway
While the Court seemingly aimed to protect the public interest by protecting employees who are laid off while working under restrictions, in reality the Court may have disincentivized employers from accommodating workers with full duty releases. Thus, employers should tread lightly when considering laying off employees who are working under restrictions related to a work injury.
Questions about this case can be directed to Cailey Farinaro, at 610.332.7008 or cfarinaro@tthlaw.com.
Zeller v. City of Phila. (WCAB)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No. 183 EAL 2025, 2025 LX 535711
Decided: Dec. 2, 2025
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Claimant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal, rendering the holding by the Commonwealth Court final. Voluntary payments remitted equally to all employees for missed time from Covid-19 did not amount to payments in lieu of compensation.
Facts
TTH’s Lee Ann Rhodes addressed the underlying Opinion from the Commonwealth Court. Here, the Employer paid all employees, including the Claimant, for missed time related to Covid-19, regardless of if they contracted it at work under an “E-Time” designation. The Claimant filed a Reinstatement and Penalty Petition after the E-time payments ceased.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court held that said payments did not amount to payments in lieu of worker’s compensation. In sum, the payments applied equally to all employees, regardless of whether they contracted Covid-19 at work. The Claimant submitted the matter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but the Court has declined to hear the case. The Commonwealth Court’s holding that payments must be intended to compensate time missed specifically due to a work-related injury to constitute payments in lieu of compensation is thus final.
Takeaway
While the specific facts of each case will carry the day, this case illustrates the emphasis that courts will place upon the intent behind payments. If the intent was not to compensate a work injury, the odds are favorable that the court will not construe the same to amount to payments in lieu of workers’ compensation. This holding benefits both claimants and employers by encouraging employers to pay employees for temporary absences from work without guaranteeing future workers’ compensation exposure.
Questions about this case can be directed to Lee Ann Rhodes at 412.926.1453 or lrhodes@tthlaw.com, or to Cailey Farinaro at 610.332.7008 or cfarinaro@tthlaw.com.