Act 111 is not an unconstitutional special law regulating labor, and an IRE physician’s evaluation is competent to support a modification of benefits despite not considering the most recent medical records and diagnostic studies.
The claimant underwent an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) on September 20, 2011, following a July 5, 2005, work injury. The impairment rating given was less than 50%, and thereafter, a workers’ compensation judge modified the claimant to partial disability status as of the date of the IRE. On November 1, 2016, the claimant filed a reinstatement petition, pursuant to Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area School District)¸ 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017), wherein the Supreme Court found the IRE provisions in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act to be unconstitutional. The reinstatement petition was granted, and the claimant’s benefits were reinstated as of the date of the original IRE on September 20, 2011. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed but adjusted the reinstatement date to the reinstatement petition was filed.
A new IRE was then performed on the claimant on August 11, 2020, which resolved in an 11% impairment rating. A modification petition was filed, which the judge granted. The judge also gave the employer a credit for partial disability benefits previously paid, pursuant to the original September 2011 IRE. The claimant appealed to the Appeal Board, which affirmed.
The claimant the appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing, number one, that Act 111 was unconstitutional and could not be applied to injuries that occurred before its effective date of October 24, 2018. Secondly, the claimant argued the IRE evaluation was not sufficient to support a modification of benefits since the IRE physician did not consider the most recent three years of medical records from the claimant’s treating doctor or the most recent seven years of diagnostic studies.
As to the constitutional argument, the claimant maintained that Act 111 was a special law regulating labor because it treats injured claimants entitled to total disability benefits for more than two years differently than those eligible for total disability benefits for a lesser period of time. In other words, Act 111 created an arbitrary classification that violated the claimant’s equal protection rights, under the law. The court disagreed, noting that there was nothing in the record to support the assertion that the claimant was somehow treated differently. The court pointed out that Act 111 was enacted to repeal Section 306(a.2) of the Act, which was invalidated by the Supreme Court, and re-enacted the language clarifying the guidelines to be used for IREs without proposing any substantive changes.
The court further rejected the claimant’s argument that the IRE evaluation was not competent evidence of his partial disability status because the IRE physician did not consider the claimant’s most recent records of medical treatment and diagnostic studies in performing the impairment evaluation. The court noted that the IRE evaluator testified that he discussed the claimant’s current treatment and symptoms with him and, therefore, had enough information to perform the IRE. The workers’ compensation judge accepted the testimony of the IRE physician as credible and consistent with the AMA guides; therefore, the court affirmed the judge’s decision.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 4, April 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.