SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Stewart v. City of Phila. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 490 C.D. 2024
Decided: April 15, 2025
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s finding that Employer’s E-time payments were not intended to be in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits.
Background
Claimant alleged that he contracted COVID-19 while working as a police officer for Employer. Employer paid Claimant his full salary without requiring Claimant to use vacation or sick time but then issued a Notice of Compensation Denial and stopped paying Claimant benefits. Fact witness testimony established that Employer implemented “E-time” as a timekeeping tool that enabled employees to continue to receive their salary when they could not work, regardless of the reason. When receiving E-time, employees received their regular pay, were not charged for time off, and continued to accrue benefits. The core issue before the Court was whether payments made to Claimant were intended to be compensation for a work-related injury, despite the fact that the payments were made to all employees with COVID-19, regardless of whether the illness was work-related.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court found that Employer never admitted liability or work-relatedness as to Claimant’s condition, and that its E-time payments were not intended to be wages in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits. Rather, it was an administrative timekeeping designation that enabled Employer to keep paying employees during their illnesses without making them use accrued paid time off. This was supported by Employer testimony that established that E-time was paid to all employees who contracted COVID during the relevant time, regardless of whether work-relatedness was asserted; without that distinction, the payments could not be reasonably deemed in lieu of compensation.
Takeaway
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s decision that Employer’s E-time payments, which were made to all employees with COVID-19, regardless of whether work-relatedness was asserted, constituted substantial evidence that the payments were not intended to be in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
City of Phila. v. Bell (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
2025 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 66
Decided: April 2, 2025
The Commonwealth Court relied on the plain language of Section 413(a) and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ‘s analysis in Bethenergy Mines, which interpreted the use of “may” in the Workers’ Compensation Act as conferring discretion.
Background
John Bell, a Philadelphia firefighter for 17 years, was diagnosed with colon cancer and claimed it was caused by his job. The City and its insurance administrator, PMA Management, issued a Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP), accepting the cancer as work-related. Soon after, they claimed the NCP was a mistake—blaming a new adjuster’s misunderstanding of the system—and tried to revoke it.
Holding
The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and later the Commonwealth Court refused to set aside the NCP. Even though it was issued by mistake, the law gives judges the discretion—but not the obligation—to correct such errors. The Court emphasized that the Employer had already completed its investigation before issuing the NCP, and mistakes by poorly trained staff don’t justify undoing official documents.
Takeaway
In Pennsylvania, once an NCP is issued after a completed investigation, it’s not easily undone—even if it was a mistake. Insurance carriers and adjusters must be properly trained and cautious when selecting claim statuses in their systems. Administrative errors can create binding obligations that courts won’t always let you take back.
Questions about this case can be directed to Elizabeth Saleb at 610-332-7020 or esaleb@tthlaw.com.
D&R Constr. v. Suarez
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 912 C.D. 2023
Decided: April 28, 2025
The Commonwealth Court upholds the Board in its analysis of an employment relationship based on “control” of the Claimant.
Background
Claimant filed a claim petition in October 2010 alleging a work injury from August 2010. In its Answer, Employer averred that Claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee of D&R. D&R joined T&L, the general contractor. After multiple appeals and remands, the WCJ ultimately issued a Decision on September 13, 2021, finding that Claimant was an employee of D&R because that entity had the right to control Claimant’s work and the manner in which it was done, and that D&R had a workers’ compensation insurance policy through Travelers that was in effect and covered Pennsylvania at the time of Claimant’s injury. Both D&R and Travelers appealed, and the Board issued a single opinion and order in July 2023, affirming the WCJ’s decision. D&R appealed.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court held that the Board did not disregard the WCJ’s credibility determinations, invade the province of the WCJ, or misapply the common law factors in assessing the employer-employee relationship. To the contrary, the Board used the testimony of the witnesses that the WCJ found credible in applying the common law analysis and correctly determined that Claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor at the time of his injury. The Board properly focused on the control of the work and manner in which it was performed. Notably, Mr. Alcantara, an employee of D&R – who the WCJ found to be credible – admitted to having the ability to control Claimant’s work and the manner in which it was performed.
Takeaway
This case highlights that carriers and employers should be mindful as to who is “controlling” individuals, even if they believe the individual is an independent contractor.
Questions about this case can be directed to Gabrielle Martin at 610-332-7003 or gmartin@tthlaw.com.