Thought Leadership

The claimant contends that he contracted COVID-19 in the line of duty. Following his diagnosis, he was hospitalized, fell into a coma and later underwent extensive rehabilitation. During this time, he received full pay under his employer’s “excused time” (E-time) policy, without using sick or vacation leave. The employer issued a Notice of Compensation Denial, asserting his illness was not work-related, and ceased benefits. The claimant argues that the employer, by continuing wage payments in lieu of formal compensation and failing to file required Bureau documents, effectively accepted the claim and violated the Workers’ Compensation Act. Although both the Workers’ Compensation Judge and Appeal Board rejected his petitions, the claimant sought review of whether the employer’s conduct constituted an admission of liability and whether its termination of benefits violated the Act.

The claimant, a police officer, believed he contracted COVID-19 through his work in the Fall 2020. At that time, he was regularly working protests, where he was exposed to members of the public who did not wear masks, despite a city mask mandate. After receiving a COVID diagnosis, he was admitted to the hospital. He went into a coma until the middle of December 2020, and he then underwent physical rehabilitation. 

The claimant was placed on “excused time” (E-time) by his employer and received his full pay, with no use of sick or vacation time. In January 2022, the employer issued a Notice of Compensation Denial (NCD), indicating that the claimant’s COVID was being denied as not work-related. 

The claimant’s benefits ended in early March 2022. He then filed Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions, arguing that the employer accepted his claim as a matter of law when it paid him wages in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits and violated the Act when it unilaterally terminated those benefits.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed the claimant’s petitions; however, the Appeal Board affirmed. 

The claimant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing the employer admitted liability that his COVID was work-related when they paid him his full salary during E-time. He further claimed that the employer’s failure to file Bureau documents within 21 days of notice, given in October 2020, and the employer’s stoppage of benefits in early 2022 were violations of the Act. 

The Commonwealth Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal, noting that “payments in lieu of compensation are any voluntary or informal compensation, apart from the Act, paid with the intent to compensate for a work-related injury.” Kelly v. WCAB (DePalma Roofing), 669 A.2d 1023, 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). According to the court, the employer’s E-time payments were not intended to be in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits because the employer made E-time payments to other workers with COVID, regardless of work-relatedness. 

The Commonwealth Court concluded that the judge did not err in dismissing the claimant’s Reinstatement Petition as there was nothing to reinstate. The court further held that the judge properly denied the Penalty Petition as there was no violation of the Act by the employer. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 6, June 2025, 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 © 2025 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.}