Attorney Thomas E. Panzer Talks Workers’ Compensation at Bucks County Bar Association

Pennsylvania workers’ comp attorney Thomas E. Panzer presents at bar association CLE.

Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorney and High Swartz partner, Thomas E. Panzer, presented at the Bucks County Bar Association’s December Marathon Day on Dec. 20, 2017.

Panzer presented “Interplay between Workers’ Compensation and Heart & Lung Claims” along with Glenn C. Neiman of Brilliant & Neiman LLC and Ryan J. Cassidy of Eckert Seamans. The biannual event offers six CLE programs for the region’s attorneys.

Panzer represents both claimants and defendants in workers’ compensation matters, which has made him a sought-after and frequent lecturer on Pennsylvania workers’ compensation topics. His practice also focuses on the areas of administrative litigation, including zoning. He has represented multiple zoning hearing boards over the past 20 years.

In addition to his law practice, Panzer is currently the elected Treasurer of Bucks County. He served two terms as an elected supervisor for Warminster Township, Bucks County, and a full five-year term as an appointed member of the Warminster Municipal Authority Board of Directors.

High Swartz LLP is a full-service law firm serving clients in the Delaware Valley and throughout Pennsylvania from offices in Norristown and Doylestown. Established in 1914, High Swartz serves the needs of businesses, municipalities, government entities, nonprofits and individuals. With offices in Bucks County and Montgomery County, the full-service law firm provides comprehensive counsel and legal support to individuals and business entities of all sizes across a broad spectrum of industries throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. For more information, go to www.highswartz.com.

When Unexpected Income Loss Strikes Home: What Are Your Options?

Few people are adequately prepared for a sudden or unexpected loss of income due to no fault of their own.  The cause for the loss of income can take many forms.  Perhaps a negligent driver runs a stop sign and strikes your vehicle, leaving you in pain and unable to work.  A work-related accident can stop or reduce your earnings.  A chronic medical condition can worsen to the point where you can no longer work.   A long-term job can be lost due to no fault of your own.  A common denominator of these circumstances is that income has stopped or been reduced while expenses remain the same or can increase.

There are a number of potential sources for disability or wage benefits, depending on the circumstances of the individual.  Among the most common sources of disability and wage replacement benefits include:

  1. Short or long term disability benefits, often provided either through an employer or via an independently purchased short or long term disability insurance policy;
  2. Unemployment benefits, for people who have worked for the amount of time required and who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own;
  3. Social Security Disability benefits, for people who have worked for the amount of time required and who are disabled and unable to work due to a condition or conditions that have lasted or are medically expected to last for more than a year;
  4. A lawsuit against the negligent party that caused the loss of income;
  5. Workers’ Compensation benefits; and/or
  6. Supplemental benefits though your collective bargaining unit or employer.

It may, at first, seem like a good idea to promptly apply for each and every benefit to which you may be entitled.  However, this approach can be a trap for the unwary.  This is because the factors needed to qualify for disability and wage benefits from one source may disqualify or reduce the amount of benefits the individual might receive from  another possible benefit source.  You need an individualized plan that addresses these issues.

Please check back here periodically for more of our ongoing series on obtaining and coordinating disability benefits.

There are many qualified attorneys who specialize in one area of disability and wage benefit law.  However, we suggest that your long-term interests may be better served to consult with High Swartz attorneys who will work together to coordinate a strategy designed to maximize your recovery among all available sources of wage replacement income and avoid possible pitfalls that can cost you money.

If you have sustained a loss of income, we suggest that your long-term interests may be best served by  consulting with High Swartz attorneys who will work together to coordinate a strategy designed to maximize your recovery among all available sources of wage replacement income and avoid possible pitfalls that can cost you money.

High Swartz workers’ compensation attorneys have decades of experience handling Pennsylvania claims. Our Bucks County and Montgomery County workers’ compensation attorneys have knowledge and experience in all facets of workers’ compensation issues.

If you are considering filing a workers’ compensation claim, or have questions regarding a short or long-term disability or unemployment claim, please contact a High Swartz attorney.

If you have questions regarding Social Security Disability benefits, please contact Linay Haubert, Esq. at (215) 345-8888 or lhaubert@highswartz.com.

If you have questions regarding a personal injury claim, please contact Eric Marttila, Esq. at (215) 345-8888 or emarttila@highswartz.com

Our attorneys in Bucks County and Montgomery County are here to assist you.

The information above is general: we recommend that you consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.  The content of this information is not meant to be considered as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation.

Differences Between Employees and Independent Contractors for Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation

October 4, 2017

By Thomas E. Panzer

Any claimant who has filed a Claim Petition for Workers’ Compensation benefits bears the burden of establishing all of the elements necessary to support the award of benefits. In order to establish the right to workers’ compensation, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act requires an employment relationship, during which an injury arises in the course of employment, and is related to that employment.

One question that often comes up is whether an entity is an employer, and hence whether an employment relationship exists. There is no strict rule within the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act to determine the existence of an employment relationship; however, certain guidelines have been established and certain factors are taken into consideration in answering the question.

The factors include:

  • Control of the manner of work to be done;
  • Whether the individual is responsible for results only;
  • The terms of agreement between the parties;
  • The nature of the work or occupation;
  • The skill required for performance;
  • Whether one is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
  • Which party supplied the tools;
  • Whether payment is by time or by the job;
  • Whether the work is part of the regular business of the putative employer; and
  • Whether the putative employer has the right to terminate the relationship at any time.

The determination of any employment relationship for purposes of workers’ compensation in Pennsylvania, which as a matter of course applies to workers’ compensation in Bucks County and workers’ compensation in Montgomery County, requires a review of the relationship on a case by case basis. Workers and employers should also be aware that in some other cases, an employer-employee relationship may arise under the statutory employer provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, or under the Employee Misclassification Act. These are reasons why it is important to engage the services of a workers’ compensation lawyer in Pennsylvania.

High Swartz workers’ compensation attorneys have decades of experience advising and representing both employees and employers in Pennsylvania. Our Bucks County and Montgomery County workers’ compensation attorneys have knowledge and experience in all facets of workers’ compensation issues.

If you are considering filing a claim, or if a claim has been filed against you, please contact Thomas E. Panzer at 215-345-8888 or tpanzer@highswartz.com. Our attorneys in Bucks County and Montgomery County are here to assist you.

The information above is general: we recommend that you consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.  The content of this information is not meant to be considered as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation.

 

Protz: Recent Supreme Court Ruling is Game Changer for Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Claims

August 17, 2017

By Linay L. Haubert

Once a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation claimant qualifies for wage benefits, that claimant is generally entitled to continue receiving these wage benefits until her or his right to wage benefits ends or is modified either by (1) agreement of the parties (usually in the form of a settlement) (2) a Decision from a Workers’ Compensation Judge, or (3) operation of law (such as the death of the claimant).

Until recently, there was another method by which a  Pennsylvania employer could seek to cap wage benefits to otherwise payable to an injured worker.   Pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), an employer could seek a medical opinion that the claimant’s work-related injuries left the claimant with less than a fifty percent (50%) full body impairment pursuant to impairment guidelines established by the American Medical Association (AMA).  In practical terms, anything less than a catastrophic work injury results in a finding of a less than 50% full body impairment.   Once this finding was made, the employer could take steps seeking to cap the injured worker’s wage benefits to five hundred (500) weeks from the date of the medical examination in question.  Effectively, Section 302(a) provided Pennsylvania employers with a valuable tool to cap their wage liability to injured workers.

On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District).  In Protz, the Court declared that the impairment rating (IRE) provisions of the WCA are unconstitutional as drafted.  The ruling represents a significant loss in the Pennsylvania insurer and employer’s ability to reduce workers’ compensation exposure.

Technically, the Protz Court held that section 302(a) of the Act represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.  Section 302(a) was promulgated as part of the sweeping cost cutting amendments to the WCA, know as Act 57 of 1996.  The law, as drafted, provided that employers and insurers were permitted to demand that a Claimant undergo an impairment rating evaluation by a physician using “the most recent edition” of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.  77 P.S. Sec. 511.2(1).    The IRE also provided objective justification for establishing settlement values and thereby facilitated settlement of more claims by Compromise and Release.

In declaring the provisions unconstitutional, the  Court reasoned that, in drafting the IRE provisions, the legislature failed to insert adequate standards  to “guide and restrain the exercise of delegated administrative functions”.   Protz.  In other words, the Act, as drafted, gave the AMA the unbridled authority to create a new standard each time the AMA guides were revised.  The most recent edition is now the 6th Edition.  The Court was careful to emphasize that the ruling was not intended to disparage the AMA, but instead to analyze the constitutional  parameters of delegating legislative authority.

The immediate impact of Protz, on particular cases in litigation, or at various duration of the claim, will depend on how the ruling is applied.  It is likely to be applied in either a partially retrospective,  or a purely retrospective manner.  As a result, matters which are final will not likely be reopened. These matters  include those finalized by unappealed  final adjudication and order, including Compromise and Release, or those Claims extinguished by the statute of repose.   Matters which are not yet final, will likely find the partial disability characterization returned to total disability, and the claim will not be mitigated by the IRE provisions.

There is potential grey area in application of Protz.  Each circumstance, or category of circumstances, must be evaluated separately.  In spite of the grey, one thing is certain: Pennsylvania employers and insurers have lost a major claims mitigation tool.

If you have any questions, please contact Linay L. Haubert at 215-345-8888 or via email at lhaubert@highswartz.com.

The information above is general: we recommend that you consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.  The content of this information is not meant to be considered as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation.

 

Subrogation: The Lien is Absolute (or Is It…)

November 17, 2016

By Thomas E. Panzer

Employers and their Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carriers (“Employer”) need to be aware that the Employer’s right to subrogate to a Claimant’s third party action is under attack.

Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act provides the statutory authority for the Employer to subrogate to a third party action.  The Employer’s subrogation interest is a creature of statute, as opposed to an equitable or contractual right to subrogation.  No equitable exceptions eliminate the Employer’s right to subrogation.  As such, while litigants and the courts discuss contractual and equitable doctrines, at the end of the day, the Workers’ Compensation Lien is absolute.

Workers’ Compensation subrogation applies as follows.  An injured worker is hurt while in the course and scope of his employment.  The claim is compensable.  Compensation benefits are paid, sometimes on an ongoing basis for an indeterminate period of time.  The injured worker sues a third party, like a negligent driver in a motor vehicle accident.  The Claimant makes a recovery from the third party civil action.  The Workers’ Compensation carrier asserts its right to subrogate to the recovery, in order to recoup monies paid through the Workers’ Compensation claim.

In a perfect world, the Employer receives from the civil action, repayment of the bulk of the wage loss and medical benefits paid through the Workers’ Compensation claim.  The Plaintiff attorney is paid for securing the funds returned to the Employer.  The Claimant receives some measure of recovery from the third party action, but does not double-recover wage and medical benefits.

Notably, if the third party recovery is greater than the Workers’ Compensation lien, and the Workers’ Compensation carrier remains responsible for future wage loss and medical benefits related to the work injury, the Employer is entitled to reduce the amount of the future payments by a calculated percentage (see Bureau Form LIBC-380).

As long as §319 has been a part of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, attorneys for injured workers have attempted to reduce the amount returnable to the Employer.  The most recent attack is an attempt to exclude future medical payments from the definition of compensation, and thereby exclude them from the application of the pro-rata reduction.

In essence, the Claimant seeks to recover the third party monies, but not provide to the Employer a corresponding reduction in future medical payment obligations.  The issue was recently addressed in the matter of Whitmoyer v. Mountain Country Meats.  In that matter, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board rejected the Claimant’s argument attempting to exclude future medical benefits from the definition of compensation, and further rejected contractual and equitable principles as a basis for extinguishing the Employer’s absolute right to subrogation.  The matter was further appealed by Claimant and is pending before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

While the Employer’s statutory Section 319 subrogation right has been time honored by the Courts, and has withstood multiple assaults, the principals articulated by the Claimant in Whitmoyer, underscore that the Employer must be vigilant in identifying subrogation opportunities, appropriately document the subrogation lien, and vigilantly pursue and secure return of the lien, including assuring credit versus future payments, where appropriate.  Knowledgeable Workers’ Compensation defense counsel can provide appropriate guidance and assistance in assuring that the lien remains absolute.

If you have questions about workers’ compensation law in Pennsylvania, contact Thomas E. Panzer at 215-345-8888 or via email at tpanzer@highswartz.com.

 

The information above is general: we recommend that you consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.  The content of this information is not meant to be considered as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation.

Independent Contractor Doctrine Affirmed

August 5, 2016

By: Thomas E. Panzer

Epicure Home CareThe High Swartz workers’ compensation defense group recently earned a favorable ruling from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.  In the matter of, Edwards v Epicure Home Care, Inc. (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), 134 A3d 1156, Pa. Cmwlth Ct 2016, the Commonwealth Court affirmed our client’s use of independent contractors in the context of a workers’ compensation claim.

The Epicure Home Care case is important for any business utilizing independent contractors as part of its business model. Use of independent contractors has been under attack and presently is viewed with some suspicion in a number of venues. Epicure Home Care affirms the ongoing viability of the independent contractor doctrine. Continue reading "Independent Contractor Doctrine Affirmed"