SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Gilbert v. S. Whitehall Twp. (WCAB)
No. 650 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: June 12, 2025
Even if a claimant’s firefighting-related cancer manifests within 600 weeks of the last day of exposure, the claimant must still file a Claim Petition within three years of the date of injury or disability.
Background
The Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, was diagnosed with cancer in 2018. He informed the fire department of his belief that the diagnosis was related to firefighting in 2018. He also alleged that he was disabled as a result of his cancer diagnosis in 2018. However, he did not file a Claim Petition until 2023. The Employer moved to dismiss the Claim Petition citing the three-year statute of repose. The Claimant asserted that his claim was timely because it was filed within 600 weeks of the diagnosis. The WCJ and WCAB disagreed and found that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Holding
In a published decision, the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Court differentiated between the 600-week manifestation period under Section 301(f) and the three-year statute of limitations under Section 315. The disease must manifest within 600 weeks after the last date of exposure to be a compensable disease. However, once that disease manifested, the Claimant still had three years to file a Claim Petition. The Claimant argued that some dicta in a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Sevanick, suggested that these claims are only governed by a 600-week manifestation period. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the statute of limitations was not even a colorable argument in Sevanick. Thus, the statute of limitations applied notwithstanding the 600-week manifestation period. Finally, the Court noted that Claimant failed to prove any circumstances that would enlarge or toll the statute of limitations.
Takeaway
This case reaffirms the principle that the three year statute of repose applies to “all” claims, including Act 46 firefighter cancer claims. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer attorneys Marc Aoun and John Morgan represented the Employer in the underlying litigation and on appeal. The Commonwealth Court fully adopted the outcome and reasoning argued by Marc and John and held that the three year statute of limitations is not supplanted by the 600-week manifestation period.
Questions about this case can be directed to Marc Aoun at 610-332-7006 or maoun@tthlaw.com, or John Morgan at 267-861-7580 or jmorgan@tthlaw.com.
Fee v. Prospect Med. Holdings, Inc. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 554 C.D. 2024
Decided: June 30, 2025
The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s (Board’s) holding and found that an employer is not entitled to a suspension of benefits after terminating a claimant for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination, while the Claimant was performing light-duty work.
Background
Claimant sustained a work injury that required her to be placed on light-duty work restrictions. She was then terminated for failure to comply with Employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, despite her requests for both medical and religious exemptions. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) held that Claimant was entitled to ongoing total disability benefits, as she was terminated while on work restrictions, and Employer failed to meet its burden that Claimant’s actions amounted to a lack of good faith. The Board reversed the WCJ’s finding and suspended Claimant’s benefits based on the conclusion that Claimant’s loss of earnings was not caused by her injuries, rather, it was caused by her bad faith refusal to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine. Claimant then appealed the Board’s decision.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court found that the Board ignored the evidence of record showing that Claimant acted in good faith pursuing religious and medical exemptions to Employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. More specifically, the Court found Employer’s COVID vaccination policy did not include any reasonable accommodations, and Claimant’s noncompliance did not amount to bad faith, as she repeatedly explained her religious beliefs and submitted a letter from her physician describing her health conditions and her family’s medical history.
Takeaway
A claimant’s refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine while on light duty restrictions will not automatically entitle the employer to a suspension of benefits even if the refusal violates the company’s policy and leads to termination.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. v. Lewis (WCAB)
No. 1135 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: July 21, 2025
A decision might fall short of the reasoned decision standard if it fails to resolve all critical factual and legal issues presented by the dispute.
Background
The Claimant injured her left shoulder at work on March 2, 2021. The Employer accepted the claim by Medical-Only Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable. The Claimant worked light duty for several weeks. On April 23, 2021, after receiving physical therapy and injections, the Claimant returned to her pre-injury job. The Claimant subsequently resigned in July 2021 and relocated to another state. The Claimant eventually sought recognition of a left rotator cuff tear and total disability. The Employer filed a Termination Petition based on a September 2, 2022, independent medical examination (IME). The WCJ granted the Claim and Review Petition and denied the Termination Petition, finding that the Claimant was totally disabled from May 6, 2022, onward. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed.
Holding
The Court vacated the decision below insofar as it denied the Termination Petition and awarded total disability benefits and remanded with instructions to render new findings on these issues. The Court found that it was unable to fully address the merits of the Employer’s arguments on appeal due to deficiencies in the record and the WCJ’s analysis. Notably, the Claimant’s medical expert did not physically examine the Claimant after the IME. Moreover, the Claimant’s medical expert admitted that the Claimant could have worked light duty, and the Employer presented uncontested testimony of light duty available to Claimant but for her relocation.
Takeaway
This case shows that WCJs may fall short of the reasoned decision standard by neglecting to fully analyze alternative theories and defenses presented by the parties. Employers should consider appealing decisions under these circumstances. TT&H attorneys Marc Aoun and John Morgan represented the Employer for this appeal and successfully postured the case for a substantial potential reimbursement from the supersedeas fund.
Questions about this case can be directed to Marc Aoun, Esquire at 610-332-7006 or maoun@tthlaw.com or John Morgan, Esquire at 267-861-7580 or jmorgan@tthlaw.com.
Munoz v. Jermacans Style, Inc. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1284 C.D. 2024
Decided: July 11, 2025
Petitions to amend the NCP or reinstate benefits must be filed within three years of the last compensation payment, and res judicata bars both litigated claims and those that should have been litigated.
Background
In September of 2018, the Claimant sustained an accepted work-related injury. After an IME finding the Claimant fully recovered, the Employer filed a Termination Petition. The Claimant did not respond or appear at the hearing. The WCJ accepted the Employer’s IME report and terminated the Claimant’s benefits. No appeal followed. The Claimant later filed Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions in 2019 and 2021. Both were denied on the grounds of res judicata. In 2019, the WCJ found the Claimant was barred challenging the termination but noted he could seek reinstatement based on a post-termination worsening in his condition. In 2021, the WCJ emphasized that the termination decision was final and unappealable. The WCAB affirmed both times, noting that, “res judicata applies not only to claims that have already been litigated, but also to claims that ‘should have been litigated.’” Thereafter, in 2023, the Claimant filed a petition alleging an incorrect description of the injury, and asserting his injury had recurred and worsened as of 2019. The WCJ denied the petition, and the WCAB affirmed.
Holding
The Commonwealth affirmed, holding, where a Claimant is seeking to add a distinct, consequential injury to the NCP, and to reinstate indemnity payments for disability thereto, Claimant must file the petitions within three years of the most recent compensation payment. Claimant filed the petitions approximately eight years after the date of his last payment, which occurred in 2014. Therefore, the petitions were time-barred. Additionally, because the Claimant should have litigated these issues during the prior Termination Petition litigation, the petitions were barred by res judicata.
Takeaway
When a claimant is seeking to add a separate injury to the NCP, and to reinstate indemnity benefits related thereto, the petition must be filed within three years of the date of the most recent compensation payment. Moreover, res judicata encompasses not only matters that were actually litigated, but also those that should have been raised in prior proceedings.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca, Esquire at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Sabo v. Johnstown Wire Techs. (WCAB)
No. 1080 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: July 15, 2025
A subsequent intervening injury outside the course and scope of employment which results in disability might still be compensable if the first incident was the proximate predisposing cause of the resultant disability.
Background
The Claimant suffered a right shoulder or upper arm injury while pulling a wire out of a machine in the course and scope of his employment. The Claimant immediately experienced some pain in his right shoulder/upper arm but nevertheless finished his shift. After completing his shift, he drove himself home, where he showered and then sat down to eat, relax, and watch television. He did not lift any heavy items while at home or engage in any strenuous activity. His pain was nevertheless ongoing and gradually increasing, and at some point, he noticed a divot on his arm or shoulder. Approximately 45 minutes after the work incident, Claimant’s pain became severe, he lost mobility in his right arm. The Claimant went to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a right shoulder dislocation. The Employer denied the claim on course and scope grounds. The Claimant filed a Claim Petition. Both the Claimant’s medical expert and the Employer’s medical expert testified that the Claimant sustained a right shoulder dislocation and attendant injuries that required surgery. However, the Employer’s medical expert testified that the Claimant did not suffer a dislocation at work, noting that the Claimant did not experience immediate, severe pain and arm immobility following the work incident and proceeded to drive himself home, shower, sit, and eat. Rather, the Claimant’s severe pain and arm immobility after reaching forward at home were consistent with a shoulder dislocation and that the Claimant’s reaching movement was consistent with the physical position that typically causes dislocations. The WCJ granted the Claim Petition in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the WCJ found that “Claimant has shown that he suffered some injury to his right upper arm and/or right shoulder due to his work activities while in the course of his employment with [] Employer.” Nevertheless, the WCJ also found that Claimant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a work-related dislocated right shoulder and/or labral tear. The Claimant appealed.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court vacated the portion of the Board’s Order that affirmed the WCJ’s determination of causation and remanded the matter for the WCJ to make additional findings and conclusions regarding the issue of whether the Claimant has established, with or without expert medical evidence, that his disability was a natural and probable consequence of the work incident on March 6, 2021.
Takeaway
This case shows that when the initial injury arising in the course and scope of employment did not cause disability, and the claimant sustains an intervening non-work injury at home, the claimant can show that the resulting disability was so immediately and directly connected with the prior work-related injury that it would naturally and probably result therefrom – i.e. the first incident was the proximate predisposing cause of the resultant disability.
Questions about this case can be directed to Christina Zern, Esquire at 267-817-8215 or czern@tthlaw.com.
Bonanno v. Rosebud Mining Co. (WCAB)
No. 1266 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: July 22, 2025
Objections to an expert witness’ qualifications must be promptly raised on the record during the deposition and preserved in writing in accordance with the Special Rules, otherwise they will be deemed waived.
Background
The Employer filed a Modification Petition seeking to change the Claimant’s disability status to partial based upon an IRE which assigned the Claimant a whole-person impairment rating of 12%. At his deposition, the IRE doctor testified that he is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, spinal cord injury medicine, and independent medical examinations. The doctor further testified that he is certified to perform IREs in Pennsylvania. Counsel for the Claimant did not object to the doctor’s competency to testify during voir dire. The WCJ granted the Employer’s Modification Petition and changed the Claimant’s disability status to partial disability based on the doctor’s whole-person impairment rating of less than 35 percent. The Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed. The Claimant again appealed.
Holding
On appeal, the Claimant challenged the IRE doctor’s legal competency to establish the Claimant’s impairment rating of less than 35 percent where the doctor was not been trained in psychiatry or psychology. The Court noted that although the Claimant’s counsel cross-examined the doctor as to his qualifications during voir dire, counsel did not object on the record to the doctor’s qualifications nor did the Claimant submit a preservation of objection to the doctor’s qualifications after the deposition. The Claimant also did not produce any evidence to refute the IRE. The Commonwealth Court applied the well-established principle that objections to a witness’s competency to testify at the deposition are waived if they are not raised before or during the deposition where the grounds for the objections are known to the objecting party. As such, the Claimant’s objections were waived.
Takeaway
Counsel should raise competency objections to an expert’s testimony at the appropriate time or they will be deemed waived.
Questions about this case can be directed to Gabrielle Martin at 610-332-7003 or gmartin@tthlaw.com.