IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mark Salvadori, :

Petitioner :

: No. 2166 C.D. 2015

v. :

: Argued: October 18, 2016

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Uninsured Employers :

Guaranty Fund and Farmers :

Propane, Inc.), :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge (P.)

OPINION BY 

JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: December 5, 2016

Mark Salvadori (Claimant) petitions for review of the October 9, 2015 

order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) insofar as she granted 

Claimant’s claim petition against Farmers Propane, Inc. (Employer), but reversed the 

WCJ’s decision insofar as she granted Claimant’s claim petition against the 

Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF).

Facts and Procedural History

Employer operates a trucking business in Ohio. Employer hired 

Claimant as a truck driver. Claimant worked almost exclusively in Pennsylvania, 

with a specific route from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Blair, Pennsylvania. Claimant 

would also make an occasional trip to Maryland. In the course and scope of his 
2

employment on February 4, 2013, Claimant sustained numerous injuries after his 

truck was struck by another truck. At the time, Claimant was parked at a truck stop 

in Pennsylvania and he was doing paperwork in the front seat of his cab. Another 

truck apparently lost its brakes coming down a hill and ran directly into Claimant’s 

truck. He blacked out upon impact and woke up on the sleeper floor in the rear of his 

cab. Claimant had to be extricated by rescue personnel as the cab of his truck was 

totaled. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact Nos. 6(c)-(d), (p).)

As a result of the accident, Claimant sustained injuries to his right 

shoulder, right arm, neck, hips, legs, and head. Claimant was initially transported to a 

hospital in West Virginia and later sought treatment with his personal physician and 

several specialists. Claimant spoke with his supervisor both on the day of the 

accident and the day after to advise him of the accident and his resultant injuries. 

Claimant has been unable to return to work due to his injuries. (WCJ’s Findings of 

Fact Nos. 6(e)-(m).)

On February 15, 2013, Claimant filed a claim petition against Employer 

alleging the injuries noted above. The petition was assigned to the WCJ with a 

notation that insurance coverage could not be determined. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact 

No. 1.) At a pre-trial hearing on April 5, 2013, counsel for Employer “tentatively” 

appeared on its behalf, noting an apparent lack of coverage in Pennsylvania and 

recommending that Claimant initiate a claim against the UEGF. (Reproduced Record 

(R.R.) at 3a.) Employer filed an untimely answer on June 24, 2013,1denying the 

material allegations of Claimant’s petition and stating that it had no Pennsylvania 

 

1 As a result, the WCJ later granted a motion filed by Claimant pursuant to Yellow Freight 

System, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1981), and deemed admitted all well pled factual averments in Claimant’s petition against 

Employer. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 5.) 
3

insurance. In the meantime, Claimant filed a notice of claim with the UEGF on April 

19, 2013. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 2.) Shortly thereafter, on May 13, 2013, 

Claimant filed a claim petition against the UEGF alleging the same injuries. The 

UEGF filed an answer denying the material allegations of Claimant’s petition. The 

UEGF also denied that Claimant complied with the notice requirements of section 

1603(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).

2

This petition was consolidated 

with Claimant’s earlier claim petition for purposes of hearing and decision by the 

WCJ.

At a hearing held on April 24, 2013, newly-retained counsel confirmed 

that Employer did not have Pennsylvania workers’ compensation insurance coverage 

for the alleged injury date. Since Employer had not filed proof of insurance coverage 

consistent with section 1605 of the Act, 77 P.S. §2705,3the WCJ noted that there was 

a rebuttable presumption of uninsurance. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 3.) The matter 

proceeded with further hearings. Claimant testified regarding the accident, his 

resultant injuries, and his continuing medical treatment for the same. Claimant stated 

that he never applied for Ohio workers’ compensation benefits and never submitted 

any documentation to the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 

Claimant also offered the deposition testimony of Steven Grossinger, 

D.O., who is board-certified in psychiatry and neurology, as well as pain medicine. 

 

2 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, added by the Act of November 9, 2006, P.L. 1362, 77 P.S. 

§2703. Section 1603(b) requires an injured worker to “notify the fund within 45 days after the 

worker knew that the employer was uninsured.” 77 P.S. §2703(b).

3 Added by the Act of November 9, 2006, P.L. 1362. Section 1605(a) provides that 

“[w]ithin ten days of notice of a claim, [UEGF] shall demand from the employer proof of applicable 

insurance coverage. Within 14 days from the date of [UEGF’s] request, the employer must provide 

proof of insurance. If the employer does not provide proof, there shall be [sic] rebuttable 

presumption of uninsurance.” 77 P.S. §2705(a). 
4

Dr. Grossinger first saw Claimant on March 6, 2013, at which time Claimant had 

been diagnosed with a right shoulder rotator cuff tear, injury to the anterior chest 

wall, and disc herniations in his neck and low back. At the time, Claimant also 

suffered from concussion symptoms, including headaches, nausea, and vertigo, and 

experienced trouble with concentration and forgetfulness. Claimant received several 

epidural steroid injections in his lower back and underwent multiple diagnostic 

studies, including EMGs and MRIs. Dr. Grossinger testified that the results of these 

studies were consistent with the injuries Claimant sustained as a result of the 

February 4, 2013 work accident. Dr. Grossinger opined that Claimant was unable to 

return to his pre-injury job and required further medical treatment, but could perform 

some type of sedentary work.

Neither Employer nor the UEGF presented any medical or fact witnesses

in rebuttal. The WCJ accepted the testimony of Claimant and Dr. Grossinger as 

credible and persuasive. The WCJ noted that the UEGF submitted evidence, without 

objection by Claimant, in an attempt to rebut the presumption of uninsurance, 

including a section 305.2(c)4certification form and a copy of correspondence from 

the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 

 

4

Section 305.2 was added by the Act of December 5, 1974, P.L. 782, 77 P.S. §411.2. 

Section 305.2(c) provides, in part, as follows:

If an employe is entitled to the benefits of this act by reason of an 

injury sustained in this State in employment by an employer who is 

domiciled in another state and who has not secured the payment of 

compensation as required by this act, the employer or his carrier may 

file with the director a certificate, issued by the commission or agency 

of such other state having jurisdiction over workmen’s compensation 

claims, certifying that such employer has secured the payment of 

compensation under the workmen’s compensation law of such other 

state and that with respect to said injury such employe is entitled to 

the benefits provided under such law. 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

Regarding the former, the WCJ indicated that said form stated that 

Claimant was covered by Employer’s Ohio workers’ compensation insurance carrier 

on February 4, 2013, and was entitled to benefits under Ohio’s workers’ 

compensation law. However, the WCJ found that there was no evidence that 

Employer or its Ohio insurance carrier complied with all of the requirements outlined 

in section 305.2 “so as to be deemed to have secured the payment of compensation 

under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.” (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 

4.) Additionally, the WCJ noted that the representations of Employer’s counsel were 

contrary to the representations in this certification. 

Regarding the latter, the WCJ noted that it consisted of a copy of 

correspondence from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Law 

Section/Subrogation Unit to ACS Claim Service, Inc., in Pennsylvania, and included 

the contents of a March 4, 2014 letter sent to an attorney, John Warren, in Blue Bell, 

Pennsylvania, seeking to enforce its subrogation rights as to $3,873.49 in medical 

bills that the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation paid on behalf of Claimant.5 

However, the WCJ found that “this documentation does not support that the 

Employer had workers’ compensation insurance coverage in Pennsylvania on 

February 4, 2013. Rather, it merely supports the entitlement to a credit for medical 

payments made referable to the instant matter.” Id.

 

(continued...)

77 P.S. §411.2(c).

5 While not entirely clear in the record, it appears from the content of the letter as though 

Attorney Warren had been representing Claimant in a third-party lawsuit against the driver and/or 

owner of the truck that struck him. Indeed, the letter asks that Attorney Warren contact authorities 

in Ohio to obtain a final lien amount prior to any settlement.
6

Finally, the WCJ noted that representatives of the Ohio Bureau of 

Workers’ Compensation and Sheakley Uniservice never appeared or entered an 

appearance in this matter, even though the latter received the assignment notice and 

notice of all hearings.6 In this regard, the WCJ found that “[t]he aforementioned 

entities have never indicated during the litigation of this matter that the Employer had 

insurance in Pennsylvania for claims brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workers’ 

Compensation Act and have not taken any steps that would suggest any 

acknowledgment of coverage for this Pennsylvania work injury.” Id.

WCJ’s Decision

Ultimately, the WCJ granted Claimant’s claim petitions against both 

Employer and the UEGF. The WCJ concluded that Claimant had successfully proven 

that he sustained work-related injuries on February 4, 2013, which rendered him 

totally disabled as of that date. The WCJ also concluded that the UEGF was 

secondarily liable for payment of the award because the evidence of record 

established that Employer did not maintain workers’ compensation insurance in 

Pennsylvania at the time of Claimant’s work injury. The WCJ further concluded that 

UEGF failed to meet its burden of proving that Claimant did not file a timely notice 

of claim pursuant to section 1603 of the Act. Employer and the UEGF thereafter 

filed appeals with the Board.

 

6 During oral argument before this Court, the UEGF identified Sheakley Uniservice as a 

third-party workers’ compensation administrator for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 
7

Board’s Decision

The Board affirmed the decision of the WCJ as to the grant of 

Claimant’s claim petition against Employer, but reversed the decision of the WCJ as 

to the grant of Claimant’s claim petition against the UEGF. In affirming the WCJ’s 

grant of Claimant’s claim petition against Employer, the Board held that the credible 

testimony of Claimant and Dr. Grossinger supported the WCJ’s finding that Claimant 

sustained an injury at work on February 4, 2013, that rendered him totally disabled. 

In reversing the WCJ’s grant of Claimant’s claim petition against the UEGF, the 

Board held that the WCJ erred in finding that the UEGF was secondarily liable for 

payment of the award. More specifically, the Board concluded that the section 305.2 

certification submitted into evidence established that Employer was not uninsured, 

that Employer had secured the payment of compensation under Ohio law, and that 

Claimant was entitled to benefits under said law. The Board noted that the 

aforementioned correspondence evidenced the payment of medical benefits on behalf 

of Claimant by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Claimant thereafter 

filed a petition for review with this Court.

Discussion

On appeal to this Court,7 Claimant argues that the Board erred in 

concluding that the section 305.2(c) certification form submitted into evidence by the 

UEGF conforms to the dictates of the Act to allow Employer to be deemed insured as 

 

7 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by 

substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights 

have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Meadow 

Lakes Apartments v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214, 216 n.3 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2006). 
8

a matter of law and that, in reaching this conclusion, the Board improperly rejected 

the supported findings of the WCJ, re-weighed evidence, and interpreted inferences 

in the manner least favorable to him when he prevailed before the WCJ. 

Section 305.2(c) of the Act

Section 305.2(c) provides as follows:

If an employe is entitled to the benefits of this act by reason 

of an injury sustained in this State in employment by an 

employer who is domiciled in another state and who has not 

secured the payment of compensation as required by this 

act, the employer or his carrier may file with the director a 

certificate, issued by the commission or agency of such 

other state having jurisdiction over workmen’s 

compensation claims, certifying that such employer has 

secured the payment of compensation under the workmen’s 

compensation law of such other state and that with respect 

to said injury such employe is entitled to the benefits 

provided under such law.

In such event:

(1) The filing of such certificate shall 

constitute an appointment by such employer or 

his carrier of the Secretary of Labor and 

Industry as his agent for acceptance of the 

service of process in any proceeding brought 

by such employe or his dependents to enforce 

his or their rights under this act on account of 

such injury;

(2) The secretary shall send to such employer 

or carrier, by registered or certified mail to the 

address shown on such certificate, a true copy 

of any notice of claim or other process served 

on the secretary by the employe or his 

dependents in any proceeding brought to 

enforce his or their rights under this act;
9

(3)

(i) If such employer is a qualified 

self-insurer under the workmen’s 

compensation law of such other 

state, such employer shall, upon 

submission of evidence, 

satisfactory to the director, of his 

ability to meet his liability to such 

employe under this act, be 

deemed to be a qualified selfinsurer under this act;

(ii) If such employer’s liability 

under the workmen’s 

compensation law of such other 

state is insured, such employer’s 

carrier, as to such employe or his 

dependents only, shall be deemed 

to be an insurer authorized to 

write insurance under and be 

subject to this act: Provided, 

however, That unless its contract 

with said employer requires it to 

pay an amount equivalent to the 

compensation benefits provided 

by this act, its liability for income 

benefits or medical and related 

benefits shall not exceed the 

amounts of such benefits for 

which such insurer would have 

been liable under the workmen’s 

compensation law of such other 

state;

(4) If the total amount for which such 

employer’s insurance is liable under clause (3) 

above is less than the total of the compensation 

benefits to which such employe is entitled 

under this act, the secretary may, if he deems it 

necessary, require the employer to file 
10

security, satisfactory to the secretary, to secure 

the payment of benefits due such employe or 

his dependents under this act; and

(5) Upon compliance with the preceding 

requirements of this subsection (c), such 

employer, as to such employe only, shall be 

deemed to have secured the payment of 

compensation under this act.

77 P.S. §411.2(c).

Ohio Law

Claimant first argues that the Board erred in failing to undertake any 

review of Ohio law to support a determination that Claimant was in fact entitled to 

benefits in Ohio for his Pennsylvania work injury. However, Claimant cites no 

authority, either statutory or case law from this Commonwealth, requiring a WCJ or 

the Board to undertake such a review. Instead, Claimant relies on two Ohio cases, 

Prendergast v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 27 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio 1940), and 

Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Gardinio, 164 N.E. 758 (Ohio 1929), for support. 

Claimant’s reliance is misplaced.

In Prendergast, Charles Prendergast (Decedent), husband of Thelma 

Prendergast (wife), suffered fatal injuries in a 1931 accident in Indiana while selling 

water meters for Bailey Meter Company (Bailey), an Ohio company. Following 

Decedent’s death in 1931, his wife filed a claim for compensation first in Missouri, 

which denied the same, and later in Ohio. The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied 

the claim, but a common pleas court reversed. An Ohio appeals court affirmed this 

decision, as did the Ohio Supreme Court. In its decision, the Ohio Supreme Court 

concluded that the Ohio compensation law applied to “any employer doing business 
11

in Ohio who hires employees to work either in Ohio or elsewhere.” Id. at 237. The 

Ohio Supreme Court held that “[w]here an Ohio employer enters into a contract with 

a person to perform transitory work outside of this state, without specification as to 

the exact location or nature of the work, such as that of a traveling salesman, there is 

no good reason why such person should not have coverage under the Ohio 

Workmen’s Compensation Act.” Id. at 238. Thus, Prendergast actually supports an 

out-of-state employee’s entitlement to Ohio benefits.

While Ohio benefits were denied in Gardinio, that case is factually 

distinguishable from the present case. In Gardinio, an Ohio company hired an 

employee to perform work exclusively in Pennsylvania, where he was injured. 

However, the Ohio company had complied with, and covered the employee, under 

the Act’s predecessor in this Commonwealth. In fact, the employee actually applied 

for and received workers’ compensation benefits in accordance with Pennsylvania 

law. Nevertheless, the employee filed a second claim in Ohio, in essence attempting 

to recover double the amount of benefits to which he was entitled. The Ohio 

Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision of an appeals court awarding Ohio 

benefits to employee, concluding that said benefits were not available to the 

employee and stressing the employee’s recovery in this state. 

In the present case, there is no dispute that Employer did not maintain 

workers’ compensation coverage in this Commonwealth. However, this lack of 

coverage did not preclude the grant of Claimant’s claim petition here. Indeed, the 

Board affirmed the WCJ’s grant of Claimant’s claim petition against Employer. In 

such cases, section 305.2(c) of the Act simply permits an out-of-state employer to file 

a certification form with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation in 

order to access its Ohio coverage for payments. The benefit of this legislative 
12

enactment is clear, that the responsible employer, and not the UEGF, is liable for the 

payment of compensation benefits.8 Moreover, we note that the record herein reveals 

that the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation paid $3,873.49 in medical bills on 

behalf of Claimant, further discounting any argument that Claimant would not be 

entitled to benefits under Ohio law. 

 

Section 305.2(c) Certification Form

Claimant next challenges the sufficiency of the section 305.2(c) 

certification form submitted by Employer. However, we see no merit to this 

argument by Claimant. At the hearings before the WCJ, the UEGF submitted a 

packet of documents, certified by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ 

Compensation, which included the certification form. This certification form was 

submitted on behalf of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and signed by 

Shelli Hensley, who identifies herself as an operations manager for Sheakley 

Uniservice. The certification form states that Employer had workers’ compensation 

insurance coverage in Ohio on February 4, 2013, the date of Claimant’s work injury, 

that Claimant was covered under this policy, and that Claimant was entitled to 

benefits under Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. The certification form identifies 

the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation as the insurer responsible for the claim 

and proceeds to set forth an insurance policy number, effective December 19, 2008, 

which policy remained active as of January 6, 2014, the date the form was signed. 

 

8

Indeed, the UEGF is primarily funded by assessments of Pennsylvania workers’ 

compensation insurers and self-insurers. See Sections 1602 and 1607 of the Act, added by the Act 

of November 9, 2006, P.L. 1362, 77 P.S. §§2702, 2707.
13

Thus, the certification form complied with the requirements of section 305.2(c) of the 

Act.

While Claimant takes issue with the lack of any evidence that Employer 

was domiciled in Ohio or the lack of further activity under sections 305.2(c)(1)-(5) of 

the Act, the fact remains that section 305.2(c) imposes no such requirement regarding 

the former and the latter relates to post-submission actions undertaken by the 

Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry, not Employer. In the course of 

this argument, we also note that Claimant misidentifies Sheakley Uniservice as 

Employer’s third-party workers’ compensation administrator in Ohio, when it appears 

that Sheakley Uniservice acts in that capacity for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ 

Compensation. Further, Claimant argues that the certification form lacks any 

statement that Employer has secured payment of compensation to Claimant to which 

he is entitled under Ohio law. However, the certification form states that Employer 

had workers’ compensation insurance in Ohio at the time of the accident and that 

Claimant was entitled to benefits under Ohio law. These statements, coupled with the 

record evidence that the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation paid $3,873.49 in 

medical bills on behalf of Claimant, belie Claimant’s argument. 

Board’s Scope and Standard of Review

Finally, Claimant argues that the Board erred by improperly rejecting 

the supported findings of the WCJ, re-weighing evidence, and interpreting inferences 

in the manner least favorable to him when he prevailed before the WCJ. However, 

we disagree with Claimant’s characterization of the Board’s actions. The Board 

recognized the WCJ’s complete authority over questions and evidentiary weight. See

Board op. at 3. Contrary to Claimant’s arguments, the Board merely held that the 
14

certification form submitted by Employer met the requirements of section 305.2(c) of 

the Act such that the WCJ’s finding that Employer was uninsured was not supported 

by substantial evidence. Based upon our review above, we see no error in the 

Board’s holding.

Conclusion

Because the certification form submitted into evidence by the UEGF 

conforms to the requirements of section 305.2(c) of the Act, the Board properly held 

that Employer was deemed to be insured as a matter of law. The Board did not 

improperly reject the supported findings of the WCJ, re-weigh evidence, or interpret 

inferences in the manner least favorable to Claimant. Instead, the Board merely held 

that the WCJ’s finding that Employer was uninsured was not supported by the record.

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mark Salvadori, :

Petitioner :

: No. 2166 C.D. 2015

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Uninsured Employers :

Guaranty Fund and Farmers :

Propane, Inc.), :

Respondents :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5

th day of December, 2016, the order of the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, dated October 9, 2015, is hereby affirmed. 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge