This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A worker suffered a work-related injury on August 10, 2017, while using a floor buffer to clean a moving truck. The worker was diagnosed with a lumbar strain and was given work restrictions. The employer and insurer initially paid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits but later changed the worker's healthcare provider, leading to a dispute over the worker's medical improvement status and benefits entitlement (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration, February 22, 2019: The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the worker had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and was entitled to TTD benefits dating back to September 11, 2017 (para 4).
- Workers’ Compensation Administration, April 1, 2021: A stipulated compensation order was entered regarding the worker’s permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The worker argued that the WCJ erred by assessing only two benefit penalties, failing to consider violations of common law and statutory duties for additional penalties, and miscalculating the benefit penalties (para 1).
- Appellees: The employer and insurer contended that the WCJ correctly assessed the penalties and that the calculation of the benefit penalties was appropriate.
Legal Issues
- Whether the WCJ erred in assessing only two benefit penalties.
- Whether the WCJ failed to consider violations of common law and statutory duties for additional penalties.
- Whether the WCJ miscalculated the amount of the benefit penalties.
Disposition
- The court affirmed the WCJ's decision in part and reversed it in part, agreeing with the worker on the issue of penalty calculation but not on the number of penalties or the consideration of common law and statutory duties (para 1).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Attrep and Ives JJ. concurring):
The court found that the WCJ did not err in assessing only two benefit penalties, as the worker did not demonstrate that additional penalties were warranted based on the WCJ's findings. The court also held that the worker did not preserve the argument regarding common law or Insurance Code violations for additional penalties. However, the court agreed with the worker that the WCJ's calculation of the benefit penalties was not in accordance with the statutory requirements, as the penalties were not based on benefits ordered in any compensation order. The case was remanded for recalculation of the benefit penalties (paras 7-25).