Thought Leadership

The claimant sustained an injury to her head when a metal gate crashed down on top of her. Following the injury, the employer issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP). On September 8, 2017, the Employer issued a Medical Only Notice of Compensation Payable (MONCP), stopping wage loss benefits. On August 10, 2017, the claimant was seen for an IME with a neurologist, who opined that she was fully recovered from the work injury. The employer then filed a termination petition, and the claimant filed a reinstatement and penalty petitions, alleging that the employer improperly revoked the NTCP with a MONCP.

Although the judge found that the claimant did fully recover from her work injury as of the date of the IME, the judge agreed with the claimant’s position that issuance of an MONCP after the date of an IME was an admission of ongoing disability. Therefore, the judge dismissed the termination petition and awarded unreasonable contest attorney’s fees. The judge also found that the employer properly stopped the NTCP with the issuance of an MONCP. Both parties appealed to the Appeal Board.

The Board held that the judge erred in concluding that the employer was not required to issue a Notice of Stopping Temporary Compensation (NSTC) as a result of their issuance of an MONCP. The Board also reversed the judge’s dismissal of the termination petition, noting that the date an NCP is issued is not a bar to a termination of benefits prior to that date. the claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s decision concerning the issue of stopping payment of temporary compensation under an NTCP by issuing an MONCP. In doing so, the court cited their decision in the case of Raymour & Flanigan (WCAB), 264 A.3d 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). In that case, the court observed that where an MONCP is issued, the other notices contain misstatements of law and would cause confusion and misinformation to a claimant regarding necessary next steps, which is contrary to the humanitarian purposes of the Act. The court further held that the employer was not estopped from pursuing a termination of benefits as of a date that preceded the date of the MONCP and that the employer met its burden of proof on the termination petition based on the IME physician’s finding of full recovery. The court noted that the MONCP issued by the employer did not admit any work-related disability and, thus, the opinion of full recovery was not inconsistent with the admissions in the MONCP. The MONCP did not expressly state that the claimant remained disabled, or even injured, as of the date the MONCP was issued. Rather, it recognized that an injury occurred, described the injury and indicated that the employer would pay compensation for medical treatment.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No. 10, October 2022 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 © 2022 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.}