By: Douglas A. Williams

Do you receive workers’ compensation benefits and pension benefits or benefits from a 401k or some other retirement plan? If your injury occurred after June 24, 1996, your employer and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier may try to reduce your compensation benefits based on your receipt of pension or retirement benefits. If this happens to you, here are a few things to keep in mind:

–The insurance company can only reduce your workers’ compensation to the extent that the employer for whom you were working at the time of the injury funded the retirement. Thus, if you are receiving money from a 401k plan, but the employer for whom you were working at the time of your injury didn’t contribute any money to the 401k plan, your workers’ compensation benefits can’t be reduced. Similarly, if you work out of a union hall and your retirement is funded by multiple different employers, your workers’ compensation can only be reduced based on the percentage of funding attributable to your time-of-injury employer.

–It is not uncommon for employers and/or insurance carriers to miscalculate the amount of the pension offset. Not surprisingly, when a miscalculation occurs, it usually benefits the employer/insurance carrier. In other words, it’s not uncommon for the insurance carrier to reduce an injured workers’ compensation to a greater degree than is allowed under the law. You do not have to accept that the insurance carrier accurately calculated the offset. You have the right to challenge those calculations.

–If you are an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is, in our opinion, very likely that your employer is taking a larger offset than is permitted under the law. In multiple cases that we have identified, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has taken an offset based on the Maximum Single Life Annuity (MSLA), or the maximum amount of cash that a person could receive in pension benefits each month. The Commonwealth has taken such an offset even in cases in which the injured employee elects to receive a different payment option (i.e. one that pays less cash each month). We believe that it is a violation of the law for the Commonwealth to do so and Abes Baumann is currently litigating this issue in several cases.

If you are an injured worker who receives some sort of retirement benefit, contact our firm and we will help you determine whether or not the insurance company has accurately calculated your benefit rate.

 

By: James R. Burn, Jr.

Often, injured workers were working two jobs at the time of their injury. Unfortunately, when many people are injured at one job, their injuries are severe enough to keep them from being able to perform the tasks of their other job.

Fortunately, in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, there is a provision that allows for “concurrent earnings.” The general rule is that an injured worker will receive two thirds of their earnings from both jobs, subject to any maximum benefit limits. If you earn $600.00 per week working as a mechanic and you break your arm, you would be entitled to list wages benefits of $400.00. However, if you had a second job, which the broken arm also prevented you from doing, say a warehouse loader at $300.00 per week, you would be entitled to an additional $200.00 per week in lost wages.

Many of our clients are reluctant to inform their other employers that they have suffered a work injury. We remind our clients that getting wage information from other employers is important to allow us to ensure that they are paid the highest and most accurate amount of workers’ compensation disability benefits possible under the act.

We are happy to speak with anyone who finds themselves in this position and would be willing to walk them through the steps they need to take to be sure that there workers’ compensation disability benefits are being calculated accurately.

By: Thomas C. Baumann

Recently, the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board ruled on a situation where the time of injury employer offered a modified duty job to its injured worker. In Gibson-Bowman v. Apex Tool Group, LLC, the injured worker was off work as a result of a back injury. She had back surgery as a result of the injury and was released to work with certain limitations. The employer offered her a modified duty packaging job for which she was required to place a bid. If she placed such a bid and got the job she would have been forced to give up her heat treat job which she had held for 11 years and paid substantially more than the packaging job. Her rights were spelled out under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Appeal Board reviewed the case of St. Joe Container Company v. WCAB (Staroschuck),534 Pa.347,633 A.2d 128(1993), a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which dealt with the availability of work as applied to union workers. St. Joe stands for the proposition that a modified duty job offer is not available to an injured union worker if that worker would be required to give up union benefits as part of accepting the modified duty job. In light of the fact that claimant would lose her seniority on her regular job, and face a substantial pay cut, the Appeal Board concluded the job was not truly available to her and did not constitute a valid job offer.

Injured workers in the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation system often find themselves with a modified duty job offer from the time of injury employer. Whether or not to accept such an offer is often a complicated question. The Worker’s Compensation attorneys at Abes Baumann have been dealing with these issues for many years. We have dealt with this from State College and Altoona to Greensburg and Uniontown as well as Mercer and New Castle. If any injured workers have problems of this nature, feel free to give us a phone call with no cost or obligation to you.