Fitzgibbons v. W.C.A.B

15 Citing cases

  1. Marcusky v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 56 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Oct. 13, 2017)

    We do not agree. Our review of a Board order holding that a claimant's petition is time-barred is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether constitutional rights were violated. Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659, 661 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc). --------

  2. Ransom v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1253 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. May. 15, 2015)

    (Emphasis added.)In Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2011), this Court addressed the application of Section 413(a). On May 4, 1997, Margaret Mary Fitzgibbons (Fitzgibbons) worked as a recreation leader for the City of Philadelphia (City) when she suffered a work-related injury that was identified on the notice of compensation payable as epicondylitis of the left elbow when a tent and stakes fell on her. The City and Fitzgibbons entered into supplemental agreement on July 24, 1998, by which Fitzgibbons's benefits were suspended as of July 13, 1998, when she returned to work at no loss of earnings.

  3. Dillinger v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    40 A.3d 748 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Employer appealed to the WCAB, and Claimant cross-appealed from the WCJ's decision. After considering the matter, the WCAB reversed the WCJ's decision granting the review petition, concluding that it was untimely under Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 612, 20 A.3d 1213 (2011). In a footnote, the WCAB also denied Claimant's protective cross-appeal, concluding that Claimant's “PTSD was not a consequential injury, but existed from the date of the original injury and was not perfected as an acknowledged injury within three years of the last payment of compensation.”

  4. Dillinger v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 770 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 1, 2012)

    Employer appealed to the WCAB, and Claimant cross-appealed from the WCJ's decision. After considering the matter, the WCAB reversed the WCJ's decision granting the review petition, concluding that it was untimely under Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ____, 20 A.3d 1213 (2011). In a footnote, the WCAB also denied Claimant's protective cross-appeal, concluding that Claimant's "PTSD was not a consequential injury, but existed from the date of the original injury and was not perfected as an acknowledged injury within three years of the last payment of compensation."

  5. Benyo v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1694 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Oct. 2, 2019)

    Where, as here, a party seeks to correct an NCP to add injuries that existed at the time of issuance but were not listed, the first paragraph of Section 413 applies. Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 999 A.2d 659, 663-64 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). That first paragraph provides:

  6. Sloane v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    124 A.3d 778 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2015)

    All review, modification or reinstatement petitions under Section 413(a) must be filed “within three years after the date of the most recent payment of compensation made prior to the filing of such petition.”77 P.S. § 772; Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia),999 A.2d 659, 663–64 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010)(en banc). In addition, Section 413(a) provides that

  7. Sloane v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    124 A.3d 778 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2015)

    All review, modification or reinstatement petitions under Section 413(a) must be filed “within three years after the date of the most recent payment of compensation made prior to the filing of such petition.” 77 P.S. § 772; Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659, 663–64 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc ). In addition, Section 413(a) provides that

  8. PIZZA HUT, INC. v. W.C.A.B. (MAHALICK)

    11 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that a work injury can include consequential injuries, which are injuries that occur as a result of the work injury after the injury is accepted or adjudicated

    Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. Employer argues that the WCAB erred in affirming the WCJ's decision to expand the description of Claimant's work injury. Employer contends that the petition filed by Claimant in that regard was time-barred under Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010), because she failed to file it within three years of the last payment of compensation. We disagree.

  9. McSparran v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1571 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jun. 2, 2017)

    ) The WCJ also held that Claimant's loss of earnings as of April 6, 2012 were not the result of the work-related injuries, noting that she had worked her full duty position, without modifications or accommodations, until her employment was terminated. (Id. ¶ 4.) The WCJ found that Claimant had not met her burden of proving that the description of the injury in the Medical Only NCP was incorrect and, additionally, that the Review Petition was untimely filed pursuant to Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). (Id. ¶ 5.

  10. Carl v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 336 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jun. 9, 2015)

    Regardless of whether an amendment is sought under the first or second paragraph of Section 413(a), we have held that the statute clearly dictates that "where a party does not present or raise such an issue in either a discrete correctional action or in another pending action 'within three years of the most recent payment of compensation made prior to the filing of such petition[,]'" the WCJ's power to amend an NCP is constrained by the limitation contained in the statute. Fitzgibbons v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 999 A.2d 659, 662 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Here, there is no dispute that Claimant's benefits were suspended as of September 5, 2007.