Judge Wrongly Refused to Hold Settlement Hearing: Appeals Court

court judge

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled Aug. 20 in Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Braas that a workers’ compensation judge erred as a matter of law by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days after a petition to approve a compromise and release (C&R) agreement was filed. The court affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision and its remanding of the case to a new judge.
The claimant, a registered nurse, was injured at work, and the employer acknowledged the injury. A judge later expanded the description of injury, and the employer filed a termination petition alleging full recovery.
The parties reached a settlement, and the employer filed a C&R petition that resolved all future claims except the termination and utilization review petitions. The judge told the parties the C&R had to resolve all issues in the pending petitions or would not be entertained. No settlement hearing was held. The judge granted the termination petition, dismissed the utilization review petitions and dismissed the C&R petition without prejudice.
The Board held it was legally incorrect to insist the C&R resolve all pending issues. The court rejected the employer’s argument against remanding to a new judge.

The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board announced Oct. 29 that its 2027 preliminary average employer premium rate will stay at the 2026 level of 1.22 Canadian dollars ($.86) per C$100 of assessable payroll.
“For 2027, we are forecasting that increasing claim costs will be offset by rising employer payroll and strong financial investment returns,” said WCB chair Gord Dobrowolsky.
The board said it remains within its sufficiency policy’s target funding range of 100% to 140%.
The announcement opens a 30-day consultation period for employers to comment on the proposed rates.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Oct. 28 the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of benefits to an operating-room circulator at Washington Regional Medical Center who claimed she injured both shoulders at work. The court found substantial evidence supported the Commission’s conclusion that she did not prove a causal connection between the incident and her shoulder conditions.
The worker, Amanda Engleman, said she injured both shoulders in June 2023, when she went under an operating table to keep a patient from sliding off and felt a pop in her left shoulder. She reported it immediately and sought treatment. She was diagnosed with bilateral shoulder pain, and physical therapy and steroid injections did not relieve her symptoms. Medical evaluations showed degenerative changes in both shoulders.
An administrative law judge ruled her injuries compensable, but the Commission reversed. It found her not credible about the origins of her shoulder conditions, citing inconsistencies in her medical histories and testimony. Judge Robert J. Gladwin, writing for the court, said the Commission was not required to accept her evidence as proof of causation and that she “did not prove that the June 2, 2023 incident caused internal or external physical harm” to either shoulder.
Engleman can seek review by the Arkansas Supreme Court, though it is unclear whether she will.