Holy Redeemer Health Systems v. WCAB (Figuerora)

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 31, 2020
Docket372 C.D. 2020
StatusPublished

This text of Holy Redeemer Health Systems v. WCAB (Figuerora) (Holy Redeemer Health Systems v. WCAB (Figuerora)) 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
Holy Redeemer Health Systems v. WCAB (Figuerora), (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Holy Redeemer Health Systems, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 372 C.D. 2020 : Argued: November 9, 2020 Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board (Figueroa), : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: December 31, 2020

Holy Redeemer Health Systems (Employer) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that awarded total disability benefits to Karen Figueroa (Claimant). In doing so, the Board affirmed the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) that Claimant sustained her burden in proving all elements of her claim petition. However, the Board reversed the WCJ’s determination that Claimant did not give timely notice of her work injury to Employer. Before this Court, Employer contends that the Board erred in holding that Claimant gave Employer timely notice of her work injury. Discerning no merit to this contention, we affirm. Claimant worked for Employer as an emergency room nurse. On Saturday, July 25, 2015, Claimant experienced significant pain in her leg, which increased over the course of her shift. By the end of her shift, Claimant could not walk. Employer had scheduled Claimant to work Sunday, July 26, 2015, but she called off. She visited her physician the next day, and he took Claimant out of work. On Monday, November 23, 2015, Claimant notified Employer that she had sustained a work injury on July 25, 2015. On December 7, 2015, Employer issued a notice of temporary compensation payable. On January 5, 2016, however, Employer issued a notice of compensation denial and a notice stopping temporary compensation payable, stating that Claimant did not sustain a work injury. On August 11, 2016, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging a work injury in the nature of an aggravation of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. After a hearing, the WCJ found that Claimant proved that she suffered a work injury on July 25, 2015, with her credited testimony and with the testimony of her medical expert. The WCJ found, however, that Claimant’s November 23, 2015, notice to Employer of her work injury was one day late under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).1 Section 311 of the Act provides that “no compensation shall be due until such notice be given, and, unless such notice be given within one hundred and twenty days after the occurrence of the injury, no compensation shall be allowed.” 77 P.S. §631 (emphasis added). Finding that Claimant notified Employer 121 days after the occurrence of her injury, the WCJ denied compensation benefits. Claimant appealed to the Board, which reversed the WCJ’s decision on the timeliness of Claimant’s notice to Employer. The 120th day after Claimant’s work injury, November 22, 2015, fell on a Sunday. Because Section 311 of the Act did not specify whether notice must be given to an employer on a Sunday, the Board looked to Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, which states as follows:

1 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1041.4, 2501-2710. 2 When any period of time is referred to in any statute, such period in all cases, except as otherwise provided in section 1909 of this title (relating to publication for successive weeks) and section 1910 of this title (relating to computation of months) shall be so computed as to exclude the first and include the last day of such period. Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, such day shall be omitted from the computation.

1 Pa. C.S. §1908 (emphasis added). Because the last day of the 120-day period of time established by Section 311 fell on Sunday, November 22, 2015, the Board omitted that day “from the computation.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1908. Accordingly, the Board held that Claimant was required to give notice by Monday, November 23, 2015, and she did so. The Board remanded the matter to the WCJ to calculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to Claimant. On remand, the WCJ determined that Claimant’s disability began on November 23, 2015, and found that Employer had engaged in a reasonable contest. Employer appealed. The Board rejected Employer’s argument that it had extended the statutory 120-day deadline by one day. The Board reiterated that Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 applies to “any period of time [] referred to in any statute.” Board Adjudication, 4/2/2020, at 5 n.2. This includes the Act. Employer has petitioned for this Court’s review of the Board’s adjudication. On appeal,2 Employer raises one issue. It contends that the Board erred in holding that Claimant gave Employer notice within 120 days of the occurrence of her work injury.

2 Our review of the Board’s adjudication determines whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s findings of fact. Sheridan v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Anzon, Inc.), 713 A.2d 182, 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 3 Employer explains that there was no impediment to Claimant providing notice of her work injury on a Sunday. Claimant was employed by a hospital that is open “twenty-four (24) hours a day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days a year[.]” Employer Brief at 22. Claimant “not only worked in [the emergency room] on weekends, she was injured at work on a Saturday and contacted [Employer] on a Sunday to call off of work; she just chose not to reveal that her condition was work related at that time.” Id. Employer notes that Claimant “testified that the only reason she didn’t provide notice of the work relatedness of her condition sooner was because she just didn’t feel comfortable doing it[]” and chose, instead, to collect long-term disability benefits funded by Employer. Id. at 23-24. Claimant could have reported her work injury on Sunday, November 22, 2015, and Claimant did not offer any evidence to the contrary. Employer argues that the Board erred in applying Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 to construe Section 311 of the Act, which is not ambiguous. Claimant counters that Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 applies to all statutes that include a period of time within their terms. Claimant agrees that Section 311 is “clear and free from ambiguity” but argues that point is irrelevant. Claimant Brief at 6. Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 is directly applicable and dispositive of what happens when the final day of any statutory time period falls on a Sunday. Claimant rejects Employer’s characterization of the Board’s adjudication as extending the statutory deadline by one day. We begin with a review of Section 311 of the Act, which states as follows:

Unless the employer shall have knowledge of the occurrence of the injury, or unless the employe or someone in his behalf, or 4 some of the dependents or someone in their behalf, shall give notice thereof to the employer within twenty-one days after the injury, no compensation shall be due until such notice be given, and, unless such notice be given within one hundred and twenty days after the occurrence of the injury, no compensation shall be allowed. However, in cases of injury resulting from ionizing radiation or any other cause in which the nature of the injury or its relationship to the employment is not known to the employe, the time for giving notice shall not begin to run until the employe knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the existence of the injury and its possible relationship to his employment.

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

Related

Sheridan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Anzon, Inc.)
713 A.2d 182 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Allen v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc.
119 A.2d 832 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police
143 A.3d 896 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.
81 A.3d 851 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp.
213 A.2d 277 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
McGee v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
336 A.2d 458 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Holy Redeemer Health Systems v. WCAB (Figuerora), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holy-redeemer-health-systems-v-wcab-figuerora-pacommwct-2020.