Edward J. Timcho, Jr. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia)

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a workers’ compensation claimant did not waive a constitutional challenge to an impairment rating evaluation by failing to raise it in an earlier appeal. Relying on Whitfield and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Protz II, the court vacated the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s order and remanded for a hearing on whether the claimant remained disabled by his work injury. Judge Wojcik concurred in the result but disagreed that a change in law alone satisfies the statutory requirements for reinstatement of benefits.

Holdings

1. Timcho did not waive his constitutional challenge to the IRE by failing to raise it in his earlier appeal from the modification of his benefits; under Whitfield, the challenge could be raised through a timely reinstatement petition after Protz invalidated the IRE process.
2. Administrative finality did not bar Timcho’s reinstatement petition because it was filed within the statutory three-year period.
3. The Court did not decide whether Timcho was entitled to reinstatement; the case had to be remanded for a hearing on whether he continued to be disabled by his work injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Timcho waived his constitutional challenge to the impairment rating evaluation by failing to raise it in the earlier appeal from the modification of his benefits.
2. Whether the doctrine of administrative finality barred Timcho from raising the constitutional challenge in a later reinstatement petition.
3. Whether the reinstatement petition should be remanded for a hearing on whether Timcho remained disabled by his work injury.

Disposition

vacated