pendency claim in Pennsylvania

2023Significantly, a claimant has the burden of proving “not only that she sustained a compensable injury but also that the injury continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition.” Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). (emphasis added).

2018It is the claimant who bears the burden of proving a work-related injury and that “the injury continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition….” Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (citing Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993)).

2024American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2018“A claimant has the burden of proving a continuing disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition.” American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2015Appeal Bd. (Super Sucker, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 , 624 A.2d 757, 758 (1993) (rejecting the contention that benefits could not be terminated absent a request by employer because such argument ignored that in a claim proceeding it is the claimant’s burden to prove the extent of his disability and the referee is free to grant benefits for a closed period if the evidence supports such finding); see also Rife v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Whitetail Ski Company), 812 A.2d 750, 754-55 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (holding that “[t]he claimant also has the burden of proof in establishing the duration

2015See Connor, 624 A.2d at 758 (rejecting the contention that benefits could not be terminated absent a request by employer because such argument ignored that in a claim proceeding it is the claimant’s burden to prove the extent of his disability and the referee is free to grant benefits for a closed period if the evidence supports such finding); see also Rife, 812 A.2d at 754-55 (holding that “[t]he claimant also has the burden of proof in establishing the duration of disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition”).

2018It is the claimant who bears the burden of proving a work-related injury and that “the injury continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition….” Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (citing Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993)).

2015Appeal Bd. (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135 , 634 A.2d 592, 595 (1993) (holding that in a claim petition proceeding, a claimant must establish both the existence of a work-related injury and that the injury continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition); Pa. Uninsured Emplrs.

2024McCabe v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Revenue), 806 A.2d 512, 515-16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).9 The claimant must also establish that the disability continues through the pendency of the claim petition 6 Claimant appeared pro se before the Board. 7 This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

2022McCabe v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Revenue), 806 A.2d 512, 515-16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).7 The claimant must also establish that the disability continues through the pendency of the claim petition 7 In this context, disability is synonymous with a loss of earning power.

2020Milner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Main Line Endoscopy Center), 995 A.2d 492, 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2019Appeal Bd. (Main Line Endoscopy Ctr.), 995 A.2d 492, 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2018Nonetheless, "the focus in section 8371 claims cannot be on whether the insurer ultimately fulfilled its policy obligations, since if that were the case then insurers could act in bad faith throughout the entire pendency of the claim process, but avoid any liability under section 8371 by paying the claim at the end." Berg II , 44 A.3d at 1178 (emphasis in original).

2018Nonetheless, “the focus in section 8371 claims cannot be on whether the insurer ultimately fulfilled its policy obligations, since if that were the case then insurers could act in bad faith throughout the entire pendency of the claim process, but avoid any liability under section 8371 by paying the claim at the end.” Berg II, 44 A.3d at 1178 (emphasis in original).

2015Appeal Bd. (Super Sucker, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 , 624 A.2d 757, 758 (1993) (rejecting the contention that benefits could not be terminated absent a request by employer because such argument ignored that in a claim proceeding it is the claimant’s burden to prove the extent of his disability and the referee is free to grant benefits for a closed period if the evidence supports such finding); see also Rife v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Whitetail Ski Company), 812 A.2d 750, 754-55 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (holding that “[t]he claimant also has the burden of proof in establishing the duration

2015Appeal Bd. (Super Sucker, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 , 624 A.2d 757, 758 (1993) (rejecting the contention that benefits could not be terminated absent a request by employer because such argument ignored that in a claim proceeding it is the claimant’s burden to prove the extent of his disability and the referee is free to grant benefits for a closed period if the evidence supports such finding); see also Rife v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Whitetail Ski Company), 812 A.2d 750, 754-55 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (holding that “[t]he claimant also has the burden of proof in establishing the duration

2024See Frankford Hosp., 820 A.2d at 872 ; see also Baierl Chevrolet v. Workmen’s Comp.

2014A party asserting subrogation rights must do so “during the pendency of the claim proceedings.” Independence Blue Cross, 820 A.2d at 872 .

2018Potere, 21 A.3d at 690 .

2017Appeal Bd. (Kemcorp), 21 A.3d 684, 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2018Thus, while Claimant may have established that he had a compensable injury, he did not establish “that the injury continue[d] to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition proceeding.” Somerset Welding and Steel, 650 A.2d at 119 .

2011When an injured worker files a claim petition, it is his burden to “demonstrate not only that he has sustained a compensable injury but also that the injury continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition proceeding.” Somerset Welding and Steel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lee), 168 Pa.Cmwlth.78, 650 A.2d 114, 119 (1994).

2022During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant must demonstrate “that the injury continues to cause disability.” Ohm v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Caloric Corporation), 663 A.2d 883, 886 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 .

2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 .

2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 .

2016This encompasses the “burden of proving a continuing disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition.” Martin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Red Rose Transit Authority). 783 A.2d 384, 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2016To meet his burden a claimant must establish that “his disability continued throughout the claim proceedings without abatement or resolution.” Id. at 391 .

1992See also Arnold v. Logue, 405 Pa.Super. 422, 426-27 , 592 A.2d 735, 736 (1991) (claim must be cognizable under the law at the time that it is made).

1992See also Arnold v. Logue, 405 Pa.Super. 422, 426-27 , 592 A.2d 735, 736 (1991) (claim must be cognizable under the law at the time that it is made).