Firefighter Workers Comp Case

We had a client who was injured in the course of his employment as a volunteer fireman, and was declared to be totally temporarily disabled by his treating doctor. Being injured whild performing volunteer firefighter duties, he was entitled to the "state wide average weekly wage" which was far higher than his actual wages he was earning as a dish washer. The workers compensation insurance company then tried to suspend and terminate his benefits.

The insurance company sent him to an IME doctor, who said he was fully recovered from his work injury, even though his treating doctor said he was still disabled. The insurance company tried to suspend his wage benefits by offering him his volunteer firefighter job back and by offering him his dishwasher job back. They also tried to terminate his wage and medical benefits by alleging that he was fully recovered. During the litigation, the insurance company offered the claimant $5,000.00 to settle his case.

The workers compensation judge denied the request to terminate the claimant's medical benefits but granted the request to suspend the claimant's wage benefits. Both sides appealed to the worker's compensation appeal board. The insurance company appealled the judge's denial of the request to terminate all of the claimant's benefits. We appealed the suspension of Claimant's wage benefits. We argued to the employer cannot avoid paying wage benefits by offering a volunteer position. We also argued that the Claimant did not act in "bad faith" when applying for the dishwasher job when he put his treating doctor's work related restricitons in the application.

The worker's compensation appeal board agreed with us. The Board stated that it is not bad faith on the part of the employee to put his treating doctor's work related restrictions in his application, even if the Judge later determined that he does not find that doctor's opinion to be credible. The Board also agreed that offering a firefighter a volunteer position which does not produce income cannot be a basis for suspending the claimant's wage benefits. The Board denied the insurance companies appeal regarding the termination.

As a result, the Insurance company owed Claimant approximately $75,000.00 in back wage benefits due. The Insurer appealed again to the Commonwealth Court and asked for a "Supersedeas" pending the appeal. (a supersedeas is a request by the insurer to not have to pay the wage benefits while the appeal continues.) Both the Board and the Commonwealth Court denied the request and the Insurer, who had offered $5,000.00 to settle the claim, had to pay the $75,000.00, in back pay, plus they still have to pay ongoing wage benefits. The appeal is still pending before the Commonwealth Court.