Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the County acknowledges that Barrett involved litigation costs rather than attorney’s fees, it contends that this is a distinction without a difference and that it would not make sense to permit reimbursement of one and not the other given that both have their foundation in Section 440. Moreover, the County argues that It would be inequitable to force it to bear the costs of attorney’s fees where it had'a reásonable basis for its contest, and that Parker’s counsel will be unjustly enriched if the erroneously awarded fees are not disgorged. In this regard, the County observes that courts have frequently utilized equitable principles when interpreting provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. See Kiebler v. WCAB (Specialty Tire of America), 738 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Roadway Express Inc. v. WCAB (Alien), 152 Pa. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant (B) holding claimant was not entitled to agencys mistaken application of statutory provision (C) holding that the equitable principle of unjust enrichment allowed an employer to recapture a mistaken overpayment made to the claimant (D) holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant (E) holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy
Output (English): holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant