The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently confirmed the denial of workers' compensation benefits to an employee, who was receiving benefits for his work injury pursuant to the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Longshore Act). In that matter, the employee was employed as an electrician to work on United States Navy vessels at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. On the date of injury, the employee was working on the USS Stephen Groves, when he tripped and injured his right knee. Following the injury, he filed a claim petition seeking benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act). During the litigation, it was stipulated that the employee was receiving benefits for the injury at issue under the Longshore Act. The employee however took the position that there was concurrent jurisdiction, which entitled him to receive workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the Act. The matter was bifurcated by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address whether the employee was entitled to concurrent compensation under the Act, or whether the Longshore Act benefits were his exclusive remedy.
The employee testified that the USS Stephen Groves he was working on at the time of the right knee injury was docked on water at the Navy Yard located on the Delaware River. The WCJ in the case concluded that the vessel the employee was working on at the time of the injury was in fact on navigable waters of the United States, which is a prerequisite for triggering exclusive jurisdiction under the Longshore Act. As such, the WCJ determined that the employee's claim fell exclusively within the Longshore Act, and denied the employee's entitlement to benefits under the Act. The employee appealed the denial of his claim petition to the WCAB, which affirmed the WCJ's decision. In turn, he filed a Petition for Review of the WCAB decision to the Commonwealth Court, seeking a remand, and, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish that the vessel he was injured on was "on the navigable waters of the United States" at the time of injury.
The Commonwealth Court assessed the Longshore Act in conjunction with the Act, and found concurrent jurisdiction can apply in certain situations, as per case law, and, as codified by Congress, when it amended the Longshore Act to extend its jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Court specifically found that "maritime employees who are injured over navigable waters while performing traditionally maritime functions remain exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Longshore Act." The Court agreed the evidence established the employee was injured on a vessel located on the water, and, as such, determined that the WCJ did not err in determining that the Longshore Act provided the employee an exclusive remedy. Interestingly, in its decision, the Court specifically agreed with the employer's argument that the employee should not be entitled to a remand for the purposes of offering evidence which should have been produced to the WCJ at the first hearing.
Overall, this case can be viewed as reaffirming the general, overarching principle against allowing for "double dipping," but should also serve as a reminder to parties in the midst of litigation to be very comprehensive in submission of evidence which supports their litigation position.
For more information please contact Ross Ventre at rventre@wglaw.com or 570.961.3503
Disclaimer: The contents of this post are for informational purposes only, are not legal advice and do not create and attorney-client relationship.