Court Strikes IRE Provisions From Workers’ Compensation Act
by
Daniel M. Lieberman on Mar. 06, 2018
Summary: On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its Decision in Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area School Dist.), 2017 Pa. Lexis 1401 (Pa. 2017).
On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its Decision in Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area School Dist.), 2017 Pa. Lexis 1401 (Pa. 2017). This case involves a challenge to Section 306(a.2), 77 P.S. §511.2, the provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act which provides for the modification of a claimant’s benefits from total to partial based on the results of an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). Pursuant to the law, if a claimant is determined to be less than 50% disabled under the American Medical Association (AMA) Guidelines, the claimant’s benefits could be modified from total to partial and limited to 500-weeks of additional payments. The Court held that Section 306(a.2) is unconstitutional because it delegates the determination of a claimant’s benefit entitlement to the AMA.
The Pennsylvania Constitution vests the authority to make laws in the General Assembly and correspondingly prohibits the General Assembly from delegating legislative authority to either a different branch of government or non-governmental organization unless certain procedural protections are present. In Protz, the Court found that Section 306(a.2) violated this “non-delegation doctrine,” as the provision vests authority in the AMA, a private organization, to determine whether a claimant’s disability would be modified. As such, the Court invalidated the entirety of Section 306(a.2).
This Decision has significant implications not just for current litigation involving IRE Determinations, but also with regard to those claimants whose benefits have previously been modified from total to partial under the statute. At this point, the procedural obligations for employers and insurance carriers are unresolved. We anticipate that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation or the Office of Adjudication will be issuing guidance clarifying how we are to proceed. In the meantime, should you be contacted by an attorney or a claimant regarding any claim that involves an impairment rating evaluation, please contact us immediately so that we may provide fact-specific advice. We understand that the Supreme Court’s decision has created uncertainty and concern, but we are committed to assisting you through this transitional period. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, call us today.
