Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Labinsky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Citations: 654 A.2d 41; 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 714
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; December 28, 1994; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Barbara Labinsky (Claimant) sought review of a Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board order that upheld a referee's decision denying her petition to review a notice of compensation payable. The Claimant was injured in an automobile accident on April 9, 1988, while a passenger in a vehicle owned by Pennsylvania State University and driven by her boyfriend, also an employee. She reported the injury to her employer on April 11, 1988, and received total disability compensation starting July 12, 1988, for six days of lost wages. Subsequently, Employer filed a petition for suspension, claiming a change in Claimant's disability as of June 19, 1988. Claimant did not respond to the petition and failed to attend two scheduled hearings in November and December 1988. Despite notifications, including a request from the referee for her intentions regarding the suspension, neither Claimant nor her attorney responded. The referee granted the suspension on March 10, 1989. Claimant later filed a petition on August 20, 1991, asserting that the notice of compensation payable was incorrect, arguing that her injury was not work-related. She testified that the trip was personal and that she had been informed her injuries were covered under the university's automobile liability insurance. She ceased cashing compensation checks after consulting an attorney and did not contest the suspension petition, believing she was not entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits. The referee dismissed her petition for review, ruling that Claimant was estopped from raising the issue due to her failure to appeal the March 10, 1989, order in a timely manner, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Kohler v. McCrory Stores*, which addressed similar issues regarding acceptance of benefits and subsequent legal claims against employers. An employer's petition for termination of benefits was granted by a referee, who found that Kohler had been overpaid for a work-related injury. Kohler did not appeal this decision. Subsequently, he filed a trespass complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, which faced preliminary objections from the employer that were initially sustained by the trial court but reversed by the Superior Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Kohler's receipt of benefits did not automatically dismiss his negligence action; however, he was estopped from claiming that his injury was not work-related due to the final adjudication by the referee regarding compensability. Kohler's failure to timely appeal the referee’s decision barred him from asserting the non-work-related nature of his injury. In a similar case, another claimant argued that her employer mishandled her claim by processing it as a workmen's compensation claim despite her disclosure that the injury occurred off university business. She contended this improperly affected her rights under the employer’s tort liability policy. However, the court found the decision in Kohler applicable, noting that a final adjudication on the work-related nature of the claimant's injury existed from which she did not appeal. The Board's decision was thus affirmed. The document also references Section 423 of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, which allows a referee to modify a notice of compensation upon proving material inaccuracy. It mentions that an employer's liability under the Act is exclusive, except for injuries caused by a third party's personal animus, and outlines the limited scope of review for workmen's compensation appeals.