Erin Thompson, a partner in the firm’s Philadelphia office, successfully defended her client through the Commonwealth Court resulting in a significant win for employer and carriers in Pennsylvania in late answer cases.  Specifically, the Commonwealth Court found that despite the WCJ granting Claimant’s Yellow Freight motion, not all of the allegations made in the Claim Petition were well-pled and, therefore, a termination of benefits was proper.

In this case, Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging injuries including left shoulder rotator cuff pathology.  A late answer was filed and the WCJ granted the Claimant’s Yellow Freight motion.  The parties continued to litigate the remaining issues to a decision, with the Employer arguing that the Claimant had an ongoing burden of proof regarding all elements necessary to support his claim.  Attorney Thompson also argued that portions of the Claim Petition were not well-pled and subject to rebuttal.  The WCJ agreed with Attorney Thompson and granted the Claim Petition, in part, for a limited period and then terminated the entirety of Claimant’s benefits.  The WCJ held that the Claimant’s allegations regarding his shoulder were not well-pled and to the contrary, Employer’s medical evidence regarding the alleged shoulder injury was credible, thereby limiting that portion of the injury to a strain from which he had fully recovered.  The Claimant appealed to the WCAB, which affirmed the WCJ’s decision.  Claimant once again appealed.

In its July 31, 2023 Opinion, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the WCAB on all issues, noting that “left rotator cuff” refers to a group of muscles and tendons surrounding the shoulder, and although the Claimant specifically pled a body part, he did not plead an actual injury.  The Claim Petition did not define what was meant by “pathology” or provide any medical diagnosis for the shoulder.  The Court further explained that “pathology” could mean any number of conditions and “the unidentified nature of the condition creates a future problem for determining Employer’s responsibility for ongoing medical treatment.”

Although the case was referred after the answer was due, Attorney Thompson’s refusal to accept what is normally considered a default judgment not only gave her client a chance to defend the case, but a successful outcome.  Employers and carriers who are faced with Yellow Freight motions should look at the allegations carefully to determine if there are words that are vague and could have more than one meaning.  If so, they may meet the Commonwealth Court’s standard as set forth in this case.

If you have any questions about this article, please contact Erin Thompson, Esq. at ethompson@c-wlaw.com or feel free to reach out to our PA WC team at contact@c-wlaw.com to discuss strategies for defending a WC claim.