Court Opinion

ID: 9918804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:17:21.804931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:08.980860
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stephen A. Moakley, III,                  :
                 Petitioner               :
                                          :
             v.                           :   No. 19 C.D. 2022
                                          :
Vogel Holding, Inc. (Workers’             :   Submitted: December 4, 2023
Compensation Appeal Board),               :
                  Respondent              :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                  FILED: January 16, 2024

             Stephen A. Moakley, III (Claimant) seeks review of the December 20,
2021 Opinion and Order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board)
affirming the May 26, 2021 Decision and Order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge
(WCJ) that denied his Petition to Review Compensation Benefits (Review Petition)
and modified his benefits from total to partial disability. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
                                I. Background
             Claimant sustained a work-related injury on May 31, 2018, while he was
employed as a refuse worker for Vogel Holding Inc. (Employer) and was struck by a
vehicle traveling 45 miles per hour. Employer accepted the injury by a Notice of
Compensation Payable (NCP) that described Claimant’s injuries as a left ankle
fracture, right clavicle fracture, left humerus fracture, and multiple rib fractures.
Employer thereafter paid Claimant Total Temporary Disability (TTD) benefit
payments related to these injuries. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 62a.)
               On July 17, 2020, Employer filed a Petition for Physical Exam, asking
that Claimant attend an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) pursuant to Section
306(a.3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).1                    Claimant, through counsel,
objected to the evaluation on the basis that his May 2018 injury predated the effective
date of Act 111 (October 24, 2018) and that its retroactive application to this case is
unconstitutional. WCJ Anne Crilley denied Claimant’s objection, and in accordance
with her order, Claimant attended an IRE on September 16, 2020 conducted by Jeffrey
Moldovan, M.D., that assigned him an impairment rating of 18%. The following day,
Employer filed a Notice of Change of Workers’ Compensation Disability Status
(Change Notice) modifying Claimant’s benefits to partial disability effective
November 16, 2020. (R.R. at 28a.) Claimant filed the Review Petition, again
challenging the applicability of Act 111 to his case given that his injury pre-dated the
effective date of the statute.

1
  Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710. Former Section
306(a.2) was added by the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350 and was repealed by the Act of October 24,
2018, P.L. 714 No. 111 (Act 111), 77 P.S. § 511.3. Act 111 reenacted the IRE provisions contained
in former Section 306(a.2) of the Act, which our Supreme Court invalidated as an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative authority in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area
School District), 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017). Section 306(a.3) of the Act provides that a claimant who
has received total disability benefits for 104 weeks must submit to an IRE conducted pursuant to the
Sixth Edition (second printing April 2009) of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, which calculates a claimant’s degree of impairment due to a
compensable injury. If a claimant’s whole-body impairment (WBI) rating is less than 35%, the
claimant shall receive partial disability benefits pursuant to Section 306(b) of the Act, for a maximum
period of 500 weeks. 77 P.S. § 511.3 (1), (2), (7).

                                                  2
               In a May 26, 2021 decision, WCJ Alfred Benedict (WCJ Benedict) denied
Claimant’s petition and affirmed the November 16, 2020 effective date for the change
in his benefit status from TTD to partial on the basis of the September 2020 IRE.
Claimant appealed WCJ Benedict’s decision to the Board, arguing that the provisions
of Act 111, which went into effect five months after his injury, could not be validly
applied to change his disability status from TTD to partial based on the results of the
IRE. The Board affirmed WCJ Benedict’s decision on December 20, 2021. (R.R. at
68a-69a.) This appeal followed.
                                               II. Analysis2
               On appeal, Claimant argues that Act 111, which prescribes the IRE
process, cannot be applied retroactively to employees such as himself who sustained
work-related injuries prior to the October 2018 effective date of the statutory provision.
He contends that allowing retroactive application of Act 111 to limit his entitlement to
total disability benefits deprives him of the vested property interest he has in those
benefits, thereby violating his due process rights and the Remedies Clause of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.3 (Claimant’s Brief, at 4, 8-9.) We disagree, as our cases
clearly indicate to the contrary.

       2
         Our standard of review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported
by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights were
violated. Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap), 81 A.3d 830, 838
(Pa. 2013).

       3
         The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides
in relevant part: “[a]ll courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods,
person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered
without sale, denial, or delay.” Pa. Const. art. I, § 11.

                                                   3
             In Gonzalez v. Guizzetti Farms, Inc. (Workers’ Compensation Appeal
Board), 297 A.3d 854, 856-57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023), appeal denied (Pa. No. 252 MAL
2023, filed October 12, 2023), the claimant sustained a work-related injury on February
12, 2006. The employer accepted the injury via an NCP, and the claimant received
total disability benefits. On March 20, 2020 the employer filed a petition to modify the
claimant’s benefits from total disability to partial based on a December 2019 IRE
assigning him a whole-body impairment (WBI) rating of 29%. The claimant raised
constitutional challenges to the retroactive application of Act 111 before the WCJ and
the Board, both of which rejected his argument that the provisions could not be applied
retroactively.
                 On appeal to this Court, the claimant argued “that Act 111 cannot be
applied retroactively to injuries sustained prior to Act 111’s October 24, 2018 effective
date[.]” Id. at 858. We disagreed, relying on the plain language of the statute indicating
an intent to apply to claimants injured prior to Act 111’s effective date and this Court’s
previous decisions. We explained in pertinent part:

             Section 3(1) of Act 111 provides that, for purposes of
             calculating whether a claimant has received 104 weeks of
             total disability benefits and must submit to an IRE under
             Section 306(a.3) of the Act, an employer “shall be given
             credit for weeks of total disability compensation paid prior
             to” Act 111’s effective date, which is October 24, 2018. 77
             P.S. § 511.3, Historical and Statutory Notes (emphasis
             added). Section 3(2) of Act 111 provides that, for purposes
             of determining the total number of weeks of partial disability
             to which a claimant is entitled, an employer “shall be given
             credit for weeks of partial disability compensation paid
             prior to” Act 111’s effective date. Id.
             ....
             Although [the c]laimant is correct that statutes are to be given
             prospective effect only, except where the statute includes

                                            4
             clear language to the contrary, the argument he presents to
             this Court ignores the express language in Section 3 that
             provides credit “shall be given” for weeks of partial and total
             disability compensation paid to a claimant prior to Act 111’s
             effective date. 77 P.S. § 511.3, Historical and Statutory
             Notes (emphasis added).

             Furthermore, our courts have consistently held that Act
             111 applies retroactively with respect to the calculation of
             a claimant’s weeks of total and partial disability paid
             prior to the effective date of Act 111. This Court cannot
             ignore the express legislative intent in Section 3 based on the
             argument [the c]laimant presents, which has been rejected
             previously by this Court. See Bundschuh v. Gwynedd
             Veterinary [Hospital], Inc. (Workers’ [Compensation
             Appeal [Board]) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 556 C.D. 2021, filed
             April 11, 2022) (retroactive provision in Section 3 of Act 111
             not required to follow suggested in Section 15.71(b) of the
             [Legislative Drafting] Manual).

Id. at 858-59 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). Thus, we determined that Act 111
retroactively applies to adjustments in a claimant’s disability status, irrespective of the
date of work-related injury.
            Additionally, with respect to Claimant’s specific argument that application
of Act 111 deprives him of a “vested right,” we have rejected this contention in the
context of constitutional challenges to the Act. In Pierson v. Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board (Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC), 252 A.3d 1169 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021), appeal denied, 261 A.3d 378 (Pa. 2021), we addressed the claimant’s
argument that he had a right to benefits as calculated at the time of his August 2014
injury, rather than in accordance with Act 111’s IRE mechanism. We explained that
although “a claimant retains a certain right to benefits until such time as he is found to
be ineligible for them,” there are “reasonable expectations under the Act that benefits

                                            5
may change.” Id. at 1179. We stated that claimants “did not automatically lose
anything by the enactment of Act 111. Act 111 simply provided employers with the
means to change a claimant’s disability status from total to partial by providing the
requisite medical evidence that the claimant has a whole[-]body impairment of less
than 35%, after receiving 104 weeks of TTD benefits.”             Id. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we held that “[the c]laimant’s ‘vested rights’ have not been abrogated by
Act 111.” Id. at 1180.
           As it is clear from controlling caselaw and contrary to Claimant’s
contention, we have squarely concluded that application of Act 111’s IRE procedure
for determining a claimant’s change in disability status is not constitutionally defective
under circumstances where, as here, the claimant’s work-related injury predates the
effective date of the statute. As noted, the provision did not automatically deprive
Claimant of a vested right, but simply delineated the procedure by which Employer
could change his disability status based on medical evidence assessing the degree of
impairment caused by his work-related injury. Therefore, the Board properly affirmed
WCJ Benedict’s decision denying Claimant’s Review Petition.
             Accordingly, the Order of the Board is affirmed.

                                            ________________________________
                                            PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                            6
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stephen A. Moakley, III,           :
                 Petitioner        :
                                   :
           v.                      :    No. 19 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Vogel Holding, Inc. (Workers'      :
Compensation Appeal Board),        :
                  Respondent       :

                                ORDER

           AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2024, the December 20, 2021
Opinion and Order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is hereby
AFFIRMED.

                                       ________________________________
                                       PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge