Heart and Lung Act benefits not subject to subrogation under Act even when claimant agreed to employer’s lien recovery in stipulation.

The Commonwealth Court found that the claimant signed the stipulation that was submitted to the Workers’ Compensation Judge after they issued their opinion in Stermel v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia, 103 A.3d, 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), wherein the court held that Heart and Lung benefits were not subject to § 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer argued that, despite Stermel, the claimant signed the stipulation after it was decided and, therefore, the claimant was bound by the stipulation, notwithstanding the claimant’s lack of knowledge of the Stermel opinion. The Commonwealth Court rejected this argument, pointing out that Stermel was decided before the Workers’ Compensation Judge issued his decision and before the matter was appealed to the Appeal Board. The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision was not contrary to Stermel, making it abundantly clear that the Heart and Lung benefits paid by the employer were not subject to subrogation.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2017}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}