§ 1722. Preclusion of recovering required benefits.
In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, or in any uninsured or underinsured
motorist proceeding, arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person
who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in this subchapter,
or workers' compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for
payment of benefits as defined in section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits)
shall be precluded from recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under this
subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement
for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719.
(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984; Apr. 26, 1989, P.L.13, No.4, eff.
imd.; Feb. 7, 1990, P.L.11, No.6, eff. July 1, 1990)
1993 Partial Repeal. Section 25(b) of Act 44 provided that section 1722 is repealed insofar as it relates
to workers' compensation payments or other benefits payable under the Workers' Compensation
Act.
Notes of Decisions
Stermel v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 103 A.3d 876 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 3× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1722 (emphasis added). Thus, as of 1984, a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident could not include workers’ compensation or Heart and Lung benefits as an item of damages in his tort action.”
City of Philadelphia v. F. Zampogna, 177 A.3d 1027 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “75 Pa. C.S. §1722 (emphasis added). By precluding an employee injured in a work- related motor vehicle accident from pleading workers’ compensation or Heart and Lung benefits as an item of damages in his tort action, the employee must look solely to the employer to be made whole.”
Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities, 32 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2011).
· cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1722 (repealed in part). Section 1720 provided, as relevant herein, "[i]n actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant's tort recovery with respect to workers' compensation…”
Stroback v. Camaioni, 674 A.2d 257 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 4× “2d 458 (1994), the bills were irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of pain and suffering and, pursuant to Section 1722 of the MVFRL, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1722, could not be recovered as damages in the action against appellant as they had been paid, after the effective date of the Act…”
Pa. State Police v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 184 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018).
· cites it 2× “ninsured or underinsured motorist proceeding, arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in this subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement…”
Zak v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 713 A.2d 681 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 4× “We also agree that the arbitrators' refusal to consider the testimony of the vocational expert, which was competent and proper, denied her a hearing and warrants reversal. However, we do not agree that appellant is entitled to a trial on the issues.”
Palmosina v. Laidlaw Transit Co., Inc., 664 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 4× “When MVFRL was enacted in 1984, it contained a provision at 75 Pa.C.S. § 1722 as follows: In any action for damages against a tortfeasor arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in…”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Royer Garden Ctr. & Greenhouse, Inc., 598 A.2d 583 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “*43 Finally, the Township contends that the trial court, in violation of Section 1722 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1722, 2 erred in allowing Bortz to submit evidence of medical bills and wages that were unpaid by workmen’s compensation.”
Austin v. Dionne, 909 F. Supp. 271 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
· cites it 4× “See 75 Pa.Cons. StatAnn. § 1722 (1995); 39 NJ.”
Hobbs v. Ryce, 769 A.2d 469 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The trial court then molded the verdict to zero, based on 75 Pa.C.S. § 1722: In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, or in any uninsured or under-insured motorist proceeding, arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive…”
Byard F. Brogan, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 637 A.2d 689 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 2× “) Furthermore, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1722 then provided: In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in section 1711 (relating to required benefits)…”
Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Ins., 992 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2010).
· cites it 13× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1722. According to Nationwide, the statute required an offset favorable to UM/UIM insurers for monies recovered by the insured as first-party benefits and/or which had historically been subject to subrogation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.