Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

814 A.2d 884, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 29
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 15, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 814 A.2d 884 (Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 814 A.2d 884, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 29 (Pa. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinions

OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

Barbara Gardner (Claimant) petitions for review of the August 1, 2002, order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which reversed the decision of a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) to deny the Petition for Physical Examination or Expert Interview of Employee (Petition) filed by Genesis Health Ventures (Employer). We reverse.

Claimant was injured in a work-related accident on October 2, 1996. As of October 2, 1998, Claimant had" received 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits. On June 13, 2001, Employer requested an independent impairment rating evaluation (IRE). However, Claimant objected to the request because it was not [885]*885made within sixty days of the date on which Claimant received 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 1; Stipulation of Facts, Nos. 1-4.)

On August 10, 2001, Employer filed its Petition, and a hearing was held on the matter. The WCJ denied the Petition based on section 306(a.2)(l) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)1 (emphasis added), which states:

When an employe has received total disability compensation ... for a period of one hundred four weeks, unless otherwise agreed to, the employe shall be required to submit to a medical examination which shall be requested, by the insurer within sixty days upon the expiration of the one hundred four weeks to determine the degree of impairment due to the compensable injury, if any.

Employer filed an appeal with the WCAB, which reversed the WCJ’s decision based on the regulation at 34 Pa.Code § 123.102(f), which states:

Consistent with section 306(a.2)(6) of the [A]ct (77 P.S. § 511.2), the insurer’s failure to request the evaluation during the 60-day period subsequent to the expiration of the employe’s receipt of 104 weeks of total disability benefits may not result in a waiver of the insurer’s right to compel the employe’s attendance at an IRE.

Section 306(a.2)(6) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 511.2(6) (emphasis added), provides as follows:

Upon request of the insurer, the employe shall submit to an independent medical examination in accordance with the provisions of section S1U to determine the status of impairment: Provided, however, That for purposes of this clause, the employe shall not be required to submit to more than two independent medical examinations under this clause during a twelve-month period.

Briefly, section 314(a) of the Act states that, at “any time” after an injury, if so requested by an employer, an employee must submit at some reasonable time and place for a physical examination by an appropriate health care provider selected and paid for by the employer.2 77 P.S. § 651(a). Claimant now petitions this court for review of the WCAB’s decision.3

Claimant argues that the WCAB erred in concluding that Employer’s failure to request an IRE within sixty days of the expiration of 104 weeks of total disability benefits does not preclude Employer from requesting an IRE outside the sixty-day period. We agree.

Section 306(a.2) of the Act provides a special procedure for determining whether a claimant who has received 104 weeks of total disability benefits should continue receiving total disability benefits or should begin receiving partial disability benefits. The determination is based on the claim[886]*886ant’s degree of impairment as found under the most recent edition of the American Medical Association’s “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.” 77 P.S. § 511.2(2). If the claimant undergoes an IRE and receives an impairment rating equal to or greater than fifty per centum, the claimant shall be presumed to be totally disabled and shall continue to receive total disability benefits.4 Id. If the claimant receives an impairment rating less than fifty per centum, the claimant begins receiving partial disability benefits after sixty days notice of the modification.5 Id.

The IRE procedure begins as stated in section 306(a.2)(l) of the Act. A claimant who has received 104 weeks of total disability benefits shall be required to submit to a medical examination “which shall be requested by the insurer within sixty days upon the expiration of the one hundred four weeks.”6 77 P.S. § 511.2(1) (emphasis added). This language is clear and unambiguous.7 There must be a request within sixty days of the 104-week period to trigger the IRE process. This means that, under section 306(a.2)(6) of the Act, when the insurer has initiated the procedure in a timely manner and has not obtained a claimant impairment■ rating less than fifty per centum,8 the insurer may seek additional independent medical examinations under section 314 of the Act to obtain an IRE, but no more than two [887]*887during a twelve-month period. 77 P.S. § 511.2(6).

Here, Employer did not request that Claimant submit to a medical examination within sixty days of the expiration of the 104-week period. Therefore, Employer is precluded from seeking an IRE under section 306(a.2) of the Act in order to modify Claimant’s total disability benefits to partial disability benefits based on Claimant’s degree of impairment.9

Accordingly, we reverse.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2003, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, dated August 1, 2002, is hereby reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
982 A.2d 1253 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
888 A.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Groller v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
873 A.2d 787 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Wellington Foods v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
863 A.2d 151 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Ramseur v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
862 A.2d 749 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
856 A.2d 313 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Hilyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
847 A.2d 232 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
837 A.2d 661 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Dowhower v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
826 A.2d 28 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
814 A.2d 884 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
814 A.2d 884, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-workers-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-2003.