In a new case, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court limits the ability of claimant's to seek expansion of definition of work injury

In Weney v. WCAB (Mac Sprinkler Systems, Inc., claimant suffered a serious injury in October 2005. Benefits were paid voluntarily under a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) issued by the employer. The accepted injury was "shoulder strain." Several months later, however, claimant filed a review petition, alleging that he had suffered, in addition, an anterior labrum tear, tendonitis, impingement and a biceps problem, all related to the shoulder area.

The matter was resolved by agreement and an amended NCP was approved by a Judge. One week later, claimant filed another review petition seeking recognition of additional neck injuries.

The employer opposed this change, and the Commonwealth agreed and denied the recognition of the additional injuries.

The Court found that the principle of res judicata trumped the Workers' Compensation Act which permits notices of compensation to be amended if they are determined to be materially incorrect. However, the Court held that this language must be considered in light of the principle that res judicata prohibits re-litigating not only issues that were already litigated, but also those issues that "should have been" litigated.

In this case, the initial injury indicated that claimant suffered injuries to his neck. Failure to include those injuries in the initial Review Petition prevented them from being raised in a subsequent petition.

The Monahan Law Practice
300 North Pottstown Pike
Suite 210
Exton, PA 19341-2233

Phone: (610) 363-3888
Fax: (610) 363-2429