Bunk Dicta is Bunk Dicta: New Jersey Appellate Division Rejects Residency as a Sufficient Condition for Jurisdiction

When can an employee who was injured in another state pursue a workers’ compensation claim in New Jersey? On July 22, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division approved for publication a decision dealing with exactly that question. In Marconi v. United Airlines, A-0110-18T4 (App. Div. July 22, 2019), the petitioner alleged he sustained work injuries in Pennsylvania. Testimony showed that United initially hired the petitioner in San Francisco. At the
Continue reading...

Proposed Pennsylvania Legislation May Increase Workers’ Compensation Claims for Asbestos-Related Diseases

Republican Pennsylvania State Representative, Eli Evankovich introduced a bill on April 2, 2018 to eliminate the ability of employees to sue their employers for asbestos-related diseases. Prior to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s issuance of the Tooey decision in November 2013, Pennsylvania employees were barred from filing suit against their employers due to the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation. Tooey v. AK Steel., 81 A.3.d 851 (2013). Those employees
Continue reading...

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declares IRE Provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act Unconstitutional

On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act to be unconstitutional. The decision in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (Derry Area School District) means that indemnity benefits are no longer subject to a cap. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Wecht, the court determined that the General Assembly’s delegation of authority to the American Medical Association (AMA), a private entity, was
Continue reading...

Post-Accident Drug Testing: Part 6 — Pennsylvania

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, Act 44 excludes from coverage injuries that would not have occurred but for the intoxication of the employee. Mahon v. WCAB (Expert Window Cleaning), 835 A.2d 420 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003). The burden of proof is on the employer and is two-pronged. First, the employer must establish that the employee was intoxicated either from drugs or alcohol. Second, the employer must establish that the use either
Continue reading...