Reliable Foods v. W.C.A.B

14 Citing cases

  1. SKF USA, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Smalls)

    728 A.2d 385 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the Board's order reversing the WCJ's denial of the claim petition and remanding for entry of an appropriate award was appealable because mere computation of benefits did not require exercise of administrative discretion

    Based on the issues raised on appeal, our review is limited to a determination of whether an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162, 166 (Pa. Commw. 1995). We are also guided by the basic premise that the Workers' Compensation Act is remedial in nature and intended to benefit workers, and therefore, must be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian objectives.

  2. South Abington Township v. W.C.A.B

    831 A.2d 175 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 17 times
    In South Abington, the court described the difference between a recurrence and an aggravation as follows: "if a compensable disability results directly from a prior injury but manifests itself on the occasion of an intervening incident which does not contribute materially to the physical disability, then the claimant has suffered a recurrence.

    However, although the court in Trenton China Pottery apportioned liability under Section 322, a number of decisions had reached the same result without reference to Section 322, simply holding each employer responsible for the effects of its own workplace injury. See, e.g., Tomlinson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (J. Baker, Inc.), 648 A.2d 96 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994); Yeager v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Schneider, Inc.), 657 A.2d 1372 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995); Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995). As the Smith Glass court noted, "The partial disability award for the first injury is intended to make up the difference between pre-injury earning power and post-injury earning power.

  3. L.E. Smith Glass Company v. W.C.A.B

    571 Pa. 594 (Pa. 2002)   Cited 12 times

    Tomlinson is inapposite to the instant case because both of Clawson's injuries were totally disabling — Clawson never received partial disability benefits, which would have had the effect of decreasing his baseline wage-earning power before the subsequent injury. Yeager v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Schneider, Inc.), 657 A.2d 1372 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995), Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995), and Trenton China Pottery AIG Claims Service, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mensch and Public Service Mutual), 773 A.2d 1265 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001), are similar cases in which the claimants suffered partially disabling injuries and later suffered totally disabling injuries. These cases are equally irrelevant to the present case.

  4. Faulkner Cadillac v. W.C.A.B

    831 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the economic consequence of a specific loss under section 306(c) has no bearing on the right to compensation for that injury

    However, the court in Westmoreland Regional Hospital modified the awards, holding that in every case, regardless of the number of injuries or awards, wage loss compensation must accurately reflect the claimant's loss of pre-injury earning power. Our prior decision in Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995), illustrates circumstances under which the limitation in section 322 of the Act, 77 P. S. § 677, (prohibiting simultaneous receipt of compensation from more than one employer in excess of the statutory maximum) is properly applied. In Reliable Foods, the claimant's first injury resulted only in partial disability, which left the claimant capable of returning to the workforce with a reduced earning capacity.

  5. McNulty v. W.C.A.B

    804 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2002)   Cited 10 times

    However, if a compensable disability results directly from a prior injury but manifests itself on the occasion of an intervening incident, which does not contribute materially to the disability, then the claimant has suffered a recurrence and the employer at the time of the initial injury is responsible for the payment of benefits. Id. If the sequence of events is not sufficient to establish whether a claimant has suffered an aggravation or a recurrence, unequivocal medical testimony is essential. Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162, 166 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995); Zinc Corp. of America v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Byers), 603 A.2d 218, 236 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992). Here, the Board ruled that the WCJ's opinion was not supported by substantial evidence because it was, "not obvious, based upon the credible testimony of Claimant alone, whether his shoulder dislocations on July 9, 1994 and May 30, 1996 were recurrences or aggravations of his work injury, because the dislocations on those dates were preceded by events which may have caused either recurrences or aggravations of his work injury."

  6. Westmoreland Reg. Hosp. v. W.C.A.B

    789 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    In Westmoreland Regional Hospital, the claimant received total disability benefits for a work-related right-shoulder injury. She later returned to modified work at a reduced wage and received partial disability benefits.

    In that situation, we have held that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for both partial and total disability for the separate injuries concurrently, provided the amount payable does not exceed the maximum benefit payable under the Act. See, e.g., Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995). As we reasoned in Reliable Foods, when the first injury resolves into partial disability because the claimant is capable of returning to the workforce, but with a reduced earning capacity, it is logically sound to allow a claimant to receive benefits for both the partial disability and the subsequent total disability, so long as the maximum rate is not exceeded, because, had it not been for the claimant's first partial disability, he or she would have been receiving a higher wage when the claimant was subsequently totally disabled.

  7. Itt-Hartford Ins. Group v. W.C.A.B

    688 A.2d 247 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Approving claim based on duties as electronics technician repairing computer printers

    Based upon the issue raised in the instant appeal, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Reliable Foods, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162, 166 n. 7 (1995). Substantial evidence is "evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached".

  8. Trenton China Pottery v. W.C.A.B

    773 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2001)   Cited 6 times
    In Trenton China, a claimant was receiving partial disability benefits following a return to employment, and was subsequently completely disabled as a result of a second work-related injury. As in the instant case, Trenton China also involved two different insurers — one who insured the employer at the time of the first work-related injury, and a different insurer at the time of the second injury.

    Thus, AIG increased Claimant's benefit payment to $263.50, the lower of fifty percent of the SAWW and ninety percent of Claimant's AWW. (WCJ's Findings of Fact, No. 26); see 26 Pa. B. 633 (1996). See Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (holding that where a claimant is receiving partial disability benefits following a return to work and, then, is totally disabled as a result of a new injury, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for both injuries concurrently, so long as the maximum compensation payable is not exceeded). 77 P. S. § 512.

  9. Safety v. W.C.A.B

    887 A.2d 809 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    As we have stated previously, the receipt of concurrent partial and total disability benefits, limited by the maximum allowable rate under the Act, is logically sound due to the fact that, but for the claimant's initial partial disability, he would have been receiving a higher wage at the time of the subsequent total disability. Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (when first injury results in partial disability, it is presumed that claimant is incapable of earning pre-injury wage but potentially capable of returning to work with reduced earning capacity; receipt of concurrent benefits from two different insurers is permissible in successive-injury scenarios where maximum compensation benefit is not exceeded). While Safety acknowledges the above articulated principles from Trenton China, it argues that the Board erred in its application.

  10. Reutzel v. Workers' Comp. Appl. Brd.

    981 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 417.In so holding, the Court clarified its previous decisions in Reliable Foods, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Horrocks), 660 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (the claimant was entitled to receive simultaneous benefits for both partial and total disability from separate work injuries up to the maximum compensation rate because, had it not been for the first injury, the claimant would have been receiving a higher wage when the claimant was subsequently totally disabled), and Trenton China Pottery v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mensch), 773 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (the claimant was allowed to receive simultaneous total disability benefits for two separate work injuries; the court apportioned the liability for benefits between the two insurers). See also Tomlinson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (J. Baker, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 329, 648 A.2d 96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (there is no proscription on the receipt of simultaneous compensation, if the total compensation does not exceed the statutory maximum).