Pennsylvania: Decision in Heart and Lung Claim Not Binding on Workers’ Compensation Judge

Reiterating the rule that in Pennsylvania, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata generally apply to workers’ compensation cases, but that the doctrines only apply where there is substantial identity in issues before the respective trial tribunal, a state appellate court held that a workers’ compensation judge was not bound by a prior decision awarding benefits under the state’s Heart and Lung Act [53 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 637–638]; the issues at stake in the two types of proceedings were quite different. The Heart and Lung Act (H & L Act) allows certain police officers and other public safety employees to collect full salary benefits for temporary injuries sustained in the performance of their duties. The appellate court observed, however, that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act could provide significantly greater medical and indemnity benefits, including those for permanent impairment. The Court also observed that evidential rules related to medical evidence were significantly different under the two schemes. In general, the realm of workers’ compensation law was “highly regulated,” as compared with the H & L Act. In as much as the issues were different and the proceedings bound by different rules, a decision by an arbitrator in an H & L claim filed by a corrections officer was not binding on the workers’ compensation judge.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Merrell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. Commonwealth Dep’t of Corr., 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 94 (Apr. 3, 2017)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 127.07.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see