Pennsylvania: Claimant Retires and Moves to Nevada, but Court Says No Evidence She Withdrew From Workforce

A Pennsylvania appellate court held that it was error to suspend a claimant’s benefits solely because she received a disability pension and had moved to Nevada for its warmer climate; there was no evidence that she had permanently removed herself from the workforce. The claimant indicated her body did not tolerate the moisture and dampness in her hometown of Scranton, PA. She suffered from non-work-related lupus and fibromyalgia that had been diagnosed many years earlier. She had no medical clearance or actual recommendation regarding her move; she had investigated the drier climate on her own. She testified further that she had “retired” from her employer, had secured Medicare and a disability pension and had not looked for any work in Nevada. On those facts, the WCJ found she had abandoned the workforce. The appellate court indicated that in spite of the WCJ’s findings, there was no evidence offered by the employer that the claimant had actually withdrawn from the workforce. The court added that a claimant’s relocation was specifically contemplated by and provided for in the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 512(2).

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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.

See Chesik v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dep’t of Military and Veterans Affairs), 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 490 (Nov. 9, 2015) [2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 490 (Nov. 9, 2015)]

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04 [84.04]

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