SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Pennsylvania Case Summary

Parrish v. Yeager Supply, Inc.
2026 LX 44730
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided: Feb. 5, 2026

Commonwealth Court holds that the Security Fund, designed to cover claims of insolvent insurers, is not liable for attorney fees in utilization review disputes.

Facts

The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted the Claimant’s Petition to Review a Utilization Review Determination. The Defendant here was not a traditional insurance carrier, but rather was the Workers’ Compensation Security Fund (WCSF), which serves as a guaranty fund to provide claim payments for workers entitled to workers’ compensation benefits when the insurance company originally providing coverage is placed into liquidation. Although the WCJ found a reasonable contest, the WCJ nonetheless awarded Section 440(a) attorney’s fees pursuant to Lorino, which does grant WCJs discretion in awarding attorney’s fees against employers and insurers despite a reasonable contest.

Holding

The WCSF is not subject to Section 440(a) attorney’s fees, as it is not an “insurer,” as as defined by Section 401. Citing to Flammer, the Court held that because the Security Fund is a statutorily-created entity that pays benefits, but is not mentioned in Section 401, the legislature did not intend for it to be considered an insurer. Therefore, attorney’s fees cannot be assessed against the WCSF regardless of whether its contest was reasonable.

Takeaway

While the Court held against the Claimant by prohibiting the assessment of attorney’s fees against the WCSF, this holding is overall to the benefit of claimants, as it maintains protections for the guaranty fund that exists solely as safety net to ensure claimants continue to receive benefits when the responsible insurer cannot pay them.

Questions about this case can be directed to Cailey Farinaro, at 610.332.7008 or cfarinaro@tthlaw.com.