Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 611 Pa. 10

23 A.3d 511 (Pa. 2011) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 19, 2011 · No. 611 Pa. 10

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether an insurer may obtain reimbursement from the Workers’ Compensation Supersedeas Fund for medical expenses incurred before a supersedeas request but paid after supersedeas was denied. The Court held that reimbursement under Section 443(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act depends on when payment was made and whether it resulted from the denial of supersedeas, rather than when the underlying medical treatment occurred. The Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order directing reimbursement.

Holdings

  1. An insurer is entitled to reimbursement under Section 443(a) for compensation paid after supersedeas was requested and denied, even when the underlying medical treatment occurred before the request for supersedeas, provided the other statutory requirements are satisfied.
  2. The insurer's payment of the surgery bill was made as a result of the denial of supersedeas because the denial required the insurer to continue paying compensation pending resolution of the termination petition.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supersedeas Fund must reimburse an insurer for medical compensation paid after denial of supersedeas when the medical treatment occurred before the insurer requested supersedeas.
  2. Whether payment of a medical bill after supersedeas was requested and denied constitutes payment made 'as a result' of the denial under Section 443(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (5)

  • Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Crawford & Co.), 965 A.2d 332 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009) (en banc)(followed)
  • Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Crawford & Co.), 604 Pa. 685, 987 A.2d 637 (2009) (per curiam)(cited)
  • Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments Division, 526 Pa. 25, 584 A.2d 301, 303 (1990)(followed)
  • Borough of Heidelberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Selva), 593 Pa. 174, 928 A.2d 1006, 1009 (2007)(followed)
  • Mark v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (McCurdy), 894 A.2d 229, 236 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (en banc)(cited)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…