SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
UEGF v. Aguilar (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 908 C.D. 2024
Decided: September 9, 2025
A claimant may establish liability against the UEGF before a claimant submits proof of ineligibility for out of state benefits, but payment cannot be issued until such proof is provided.
Background:
The Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging a disabling injury, which the Employer denied on the basis that it was not the Claimant’s employer. Subsequently, the Claimant filed a Claim Petition for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF). The UEGF later joined another contractor as a potential employer. The WCJ found that the Claimant sustained a work-related injury and that he was employed by the potential employer joined by the UEGF, which was domiciled in New Jersey and did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage in Pennsylvania. The WCJ further found that the joined employer was responsible for Claimants TTD benefits and the UEGF was secondarily liable for payment of the Claimant’s benefits, however, the UEGF was not responsible for payment until the Claimant provided evidence that he was not receiving or entitled to receive benefits in the state of New Jersey. The UEGF appealed, arguing that the Claimant failed to meet the requirements of Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act by submitting required evidence before the record closed. The Board affirmed and the UEGF appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Holding:
The Court affirmed the Board, holding that the statutory interpretation must follow the plain language of the law. Applying this principle, the Court found that Section 305.2(c.1) of the Act makes the payment of compensation from the UEGF conditional upon Claimant submitting proof of ineligibility for out-of-state benefits, but it failed to address the UEGF’s liability or set a required timeline for submitting such evidence. The Court declined to read additional terms into the statute, noting that if the legislature intended to make liability contingent, as opposed to a payment, it could have used the word “liability,” as it did in other sections of the Act. Because the statute refers only to payment, the Court agreed with the Board’s interpretation that the UEGF’s obligation to pay benefits only arises after the Claimant submits the required proof.
Takeaway:
This decision clarifies that liability can be established before a claimant submits proof of ineligible out of state benefits, however, payment cannot be made until such proof is provided. Moreover, Section 305.1(1.c) does not provide a timeline for when this proof must be provided, and courts cannot include such requirement.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at (267) 861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Walk v. Pennsylvania State University (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1325 C.D. 2024
Decided: September 17, 2025
A vocational expert is not limited to the specific job sources listed in the statute when identifying suitable employment for a labor market survey. The term “includes” in the statute is one of enlargement, allowing experts to rely on other credible sources or personal knowledge to establish open and available jobs.
Background:
Following an independent medical examination, The Employer issued a Notice of Ability to Return to Work, indicating that the Claimant was able to return to work within restrictions. Additionally, the Employer had the Claimant attend a vocational interview with a vocational expert and identified five (5) vocationally suitable positions for the worker. When the Claimant failed to return to work, the Employer filed a Modification Petition. The WCJ found that the Claimant was able to perform at least one of the identified positions and granted the Modification Petition. On appeal, the Board affirmed. The Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the Employer did not meet its burden of proving her “earning power” using one of the sources provided for in Section 306(b)(2) of the Act. Specifically, on appeal, the Claimant argued that the identified job could not be relied upon because it was not identified using one of the specific sources enumerated in Section 306(b)(2); namely, listings from the Department of Labor and Industry, private placement agencies, or advertisements in the usual employment area.
Holding:
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding that the Employer met its burden of proof on the Modification Petition using the identified position. The Court emphasized that the statutory phrase “which includes” in Section 306(b)(2) is a term of enlargement, not limitation, and therefore does not restrict vocational experts to the three listed sources when identifying suitable employment. The Court held that experts may rely on any credible source or personal professional knowledge, so long as the positions identified are genuinely open and available. Here, the vocational expert’s based on her direct knowledge of local employers and Claimant’s own acknowledgment that she applied for the position constituted substantial competent evidence of job availability. Accordingly, the modification of benefits from total to partial disability was proper, and the Board’s order affirming the WCJ’s decision was upheld.
Takeaway:
This case reaffirms the ability of employers to rely on vocational evidence beyond what is expressly identified in the Act to prove that a claimant’s benefits should be suspended or modified based on generally available work.
Questions about this case can be directed to Taryn Vender at (570) 825-4794 or tvender@tthlaw.com.