D. Hughey v. WCAB (Andorra Woods Healthcare Center) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •               IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Debbie Hughey,                          :
    Petitioner     :
    :
    v.                  :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal            :
    Board (Andorra Woods Healthcare Center, :
    ACE American Insurance Company, Esis :
    Northeast WC Claims, Gallagher Bassett  :
    Services, Inc., and PA Uninsured        :
    Employees Guaranty Fund),               :          No. 1349 C.D. 2018
    Respondents    :          Submitted: April 5, 2019
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM                            FILED: June 27, 2019
    Debbie Hughey (Claimant) petitions this Court, pro se, for review of the
    Workers’ Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) August 31, 2018 order
    affirming Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) Audrey Timm’s (WCJ Timm)
    decision denying and dismissing Claimant’s Petition to Reinstate Compensation
    Benefits (Reinstatement Petition), Petition to Review Medical Treatment (Review
    Petition) and Penalty Petition (collectively, Petitions). Claimant presents five issues
    for this Court’s review: (1) whether Claimant’s appeal was timely filed; (2) whether
    WCJ Timm was biased; (3) whether WCJ Joseph Hagan (WCJ Hagan) denied
    Claimant’s due process rights; (4) whether WCJ Timm violated Claimant’s right to
    prove how WCJ Hagan and Lyric Health Care/Andorra Woods Healthcare Center
    (Employer) illegally stopped her WC benefits; and (5) whether WCJ Timm abused
    her authority and committed fraud. After review, we dismiss Claimant’s appeal.
    On December 5, 2011, Claimant sustained work-related injuries in the
    course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse for Employer. On January
    4, 2012, Employer issued a medical-only Notice of Compensation Payable accepting
    injuries described as multiple strains/sprains. On January 13, 2012, Claimant filed a
    claim petition alleging injuries to her low back, left knee, neck and shoulders, and full
    disability beginning December 5, 2011.           The claim petition was withdrawn by
    counsel who is no longer representing Claimant. On May 10, 2012, Employer filed a
    termination petition. Employer filed a request for supersedeas that WCJ Stephen
    Harlen (WCJ Harlen) denied on June 18, 2012.
    The case was reassigned to WCJ Hagan after WCJ Harlen recused.1 By
    January 28, 2015 order, WCJ Hagan granted Employer’s supersedeas request as to
    indemnity benefits. Claimant, pro se, appealed from the grant of supersedeas, and
    Claimant’s former counsel requested reconsideration at a hearing on March 2, 2015.
    The Board dismissed Claimant’s appeal from the grant of supersedeas because it was
    an interlocutory order.
    Thereafter, Claimant filed a motion seeking WCJ Hagan’s recusal. On
    May 18, 2015, WCJ Hagan held a hearing on the recusal motion. On May 21, 2015,
    WCJ Hagan denied Claimant’s recusal motion and set a new briefing schedule.
    Claimant appealed from the May 21, 2015 order to the Board, and Employer filed a
    motion to quash. By August 31, 2015 order, the Board granted Employer’s motion to
    quash and dismissed Claimant’s appeal.           Claimant appealed to this Court, and
    Employer filed another motion to quash. By February 10, 2016 order, this Court
    granted Employer’s motion and dismissed the appeal.              Claimant petitioned for
    allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was denied.
    1
    WCJ Harlen recused himself in December 2014, after Claimant filed complaints against
    him and numerous attorneys for alleged ethical violations.
    2
    By the time WCJ Hagan closed the record in 2015, more than 40
    petitions had been filed. Claimant had filed 27 penalty petitions, 5 review petitions, 2
    modification petitions, a medical review petition and a reinstatement petition.
    Employer filed a termination petition and 2 review petitions.2 All the petitions were
    consolidated and, in December 2015, WCJ Hagan issued three decisions granting
    Employer’s termination and review petitions and denying Claimant’s review,
    modification and medical review petitions and further denying her penalty petitions
    and the reinstatement petition as duplicative and repetitious. Claimant appealed from
    both decisions to the Board which, on January 13, 2017, affirmed WCJ Hagan’s
    decisions.3 In its Opinion, the Board notified Claimant that she had 30 days from the
    mailing date of January 13, 2017 (i.e., February 13, 2017)4 to appeal to this Court.
    2
    To date, Claimant has filed more than 50 petitions, more than half of which were penalty
    petitions.
    3
    In the interim, on February 16, 2016 and March 8, 2016, Claimant filed claim,
    modification, reinstatement and penalty petitions relating to her December 5, 2011 work injury.
    The petitions were consolidated and, on April 7, 2016, WCJ Todd Seelig (WCJ Seelig) dismissed
    them because they were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, the claim petition was barred
    by the three-year limitations period, and the petitions were frivolous. Claimant appealed to the
    Board, which affirmed WCJ Seelig’s decision.
    Claimant filed a third claim petition on October 19, 2016, alleging injuries sustained on
    December 5, 2011. On October 20, 2016, she filed another reinstatement petition. On November 9,
    2016, Claimant filed a modification and reinstatement petition. On November 10, 2016, she filed
    another modification petition and two additional penalty petitions. The petitions were assigned to
    WCJ Tina Maria Rago (WCJ Rago), who conducted a hearing on November 16, 2016. In two
    decisions issued on April 26, 2017, WCJ Rago granted Employer’s motion to dismiss the petitions,
    finding that they were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and the claim petition was
    barred by the three-year limitations period. WCJ Rago noted that the petitions represented
    Claimant’s third attempt to litigate issues that had been fully litigated before WCJ Hagan. Claimant
    appealed from WCJ Rago’s decisions to the Board, which denied Claimant’s appeal.
    4
    Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908, “provides that
    whenever the last day of a statutory time period falls on a Sunday, that day must be omitted from
    the computation of the period.” Wolf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cty. of Berks/Office of Aging),
    
    705 A.2d 483
    , 486 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Here, because the 30th day fell on Sunday, February 12,
    2017, Claimant had until Monday, February 13, 2017 to timely appeal.
    3
    On February 16, 2017, Claimant filed a letter with this Court stating that
    she tried to file an appeal from the Board’s January 13, 2017 order through PACFile,5
    but it was rejected. On March 20, 2017, Claimant filed a petition for review with this
    Court. By April 21, 2017 order, this Court directed the parties to address in their
    principal briefs whether the appeal was timely. On January 31, 2018, this Court
    dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely.6
    On August 28, 2017, Claimant filed the Reinstatement Petition, wherein
    she alleged that her work-related condition worsened as of that date and also
    requested supersedeas. A hearing was conducted before WCJ Timm on October 2,
    2017. Also on October 2, 2017, Claimant filed the Review Petition. On October 25,
    2017, Claimant filed a Penalty Petition.            Employer opposed the Petitions.            On
    November 6, 2017, WCJ Timm denied and dismissed the Petitions. WCJ Timm
    specifically found that Claimant’s Reinstatement and Review Petitions represented
    further attempts to relitigate issues previously fully litigated, and which were barred
    by res judicata and collateral estoppel. WCJ Timm also concluded that the Penalty
    Petition was frivolous and failed to state a violation for which a penalty may be
    imposed. Claimant appealed to the Board.
    On August 31, 2018, the Board affirmed WCJ Timm’s denial and
    dismissal of Claimant’s Reinstatement, Review and Penalty Petitions. The Board
    notified Claimant that she had 30 days from the August 31, 2018 mailing date (i.e.,
    October 1, 2018)7 to appeal to this Court. Notwithstanding, Claimant filed her pro se
    5
    PACFile is a service that provides parties the ability to electronically file documents on
    both new and existing cases with the Pennsylvania courts.
    6
    See Hughey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Andorra Woods Healthcare Ctr.) (Pa.
    Cmwlth. No. 303 C.D. 2017, filed January 31, 2018).
    7
    Because the 30th day fell on Sunday, September 30, 2018, Claimant had until Monday,
    October 1, 2018 to timely appeal. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908.
    4
    petition for review with this Court on October 4, 2018.8 By October 22, 2018 order,
    this Court directed the parties to address the timeliness of Claimant’s appeal in their
    principal briefs.
    Initially, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1512(a)(1)
    mandates that “[a] petition for review of a quasi-judicial order . . . shall be filed with
    the prothonotary of the appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the order.”
    Pa.R.A.P. 1512. Therefore, Rule 1512(a)(1) affords a claimant 30 days to appeal
    from a Board decision to this Court. Moreover, “[t]he time limit for a statutory
    appeal is mandatory; it may not be extended as a matter of grace or indulgence.”
    Carney v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    181 A.3d 1286
    , 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2018). However, untimely appeals have been permitted nunc pro tunc “when a delay
    in filing the appeal is caused by extraordinary circumstances involving fraud,
    administrative breakdown, or non-negligent conduct, either by a third party or by the
    appellant.” Mountain Home Beagle Media v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review,
    
    955 A.2d 484
    , 487 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
    Here, the Board expressly notified Claimant that her appeal was due
    within 30 days of August 31, 2018. Notwithstanding that notice, and this Court’s
    January 31, 2017 dismissal of Claimant’s prior appeal because it was untimely, she
    waited 33 days (until October 4, 2018) to appeal from the Board’s decision to this
    Court. Moreover, despite this Court’s October 22, 2018 order directing the parties to
    address Claimant’s late-filed appeal in their “principal briefs,” October 22, 2018
    8
    “On review[,] this Court must determine whether constitutional rights were violated, errors
    of law were committed, or necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial competent
    evidence.” Stepp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (FairPoint Commc’ns, Inc.), 
    99 A.3d 598
    , 601 n.6
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
    5
    Order, Claimant’s only timeliness argument consists of the following statement in her
    Reply Brief:9
    Claimant’s [p]etition for [r]eview was timely filed, the
    [Board’s o]pinion stated that within 30 days after the
    mailing of the [Board’s] [d]ecision.         The [Board’s]
    [d]ecision was dated August 31, 2018, and the date of the
    [Claimant’s] [petition for review] was September 30,
    2018;[10] which, is definitely within the quoted time frame.
    Also, [] Claimant continued to be plague[d] by intentional
    acts of continual sabotage, cyber attacks, and etc. . . [.] in
    order[] to prevent the filing of documents!
    Claimant Reply Br. at 5. Claimant merely repeats generalized claims that covert
    tactics, collusion and conspiracy by her counsel,11 Employer, Employer’s counsel, the
    WCJs, the Board, this Court and the Supreme Court have violated her rights and
    blocked her efforts at every turn. See Claimant Br. at 8. Claimant does not specify in
    9
    Claimant’s Reply Brief is the only place where Claimant mentions the timeliness issue.
    Claimant is well aware from this Court’s January 31, 2018 opinion:
    The opportunity for, and the extent of, a reply brief is limited. The
    Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure make clear that an
    ‘appellant may file a brief in reply to matters raised by appellee’s
    brief not previously raised in appellant’s brief.’ Pa.R.A.P. 2113(a). . .
    . When an appellant uses a reply brief to . . . remedy deficient
    discussions in an initial brief, the appellate court may suppress the
    non-complying portions. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in a brief are
    substantial, appellate courts have the discretion to quash or dismiss
    the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see Grosskopf v. [Workmen’s Comp.
    Appeal Bd.] (Kuhns M[kt.]), 
    657 A.2d 124
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) . . . . ;
    Commonwealth v. Taylor, . . . 
    451 A.2d 1360
    ([Pa. Super.] 1982).
    The onus of complying with the rules of appellate procedure falls
    entirely on [appellant], who may suffer consequences from
    committing prejudicial errors.
    Hughey, slip op. at 3-4 (quoting Commonwealth v. Fahy, 
    737 A.2d 214
    , 218 n.8 (Pa. 1999)).
    10
    Although Claimant dated the petition for review for September 30, 2018, she did not file it
    with this Court until October 4, 2018. See Petition for Review at 5-6.
    11
    Claimant has retained and discharged five attorneys over the course of this litigation. See
    Claimant Br. at 8.
    6
    her briefs to this Court any non-negligent circumstances or fraud or its equivalent that
    may allow this appeal to proceed nunc pro tunc.
    Because Claimant failed to appeal from the Board’s August 31, 2018
    order to this Court on or before October 1, 2018, Claimant’s appeal is dismissed as
    untimely.12
    12
    Based upon this Court’s disposition of the timeliness issue, it need not address the merits
    of Claimant’s appeal.
    7
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Debbie Hughey,                          :
    Petitioner     :
    :
    v.                  :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal            :
    Board (Andorra Woods Healthcare Center, :
    ACE American Insurance Company, Esis :
    Northeast WC Claims, Gallagher Bassett  :
    Services, Inc., and PA Uninsured        :
    Employees Guaranty Fund),               :     No. 1349 C.D. 2018
    Respondents    :
    PER CURIAM
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2019, Debbie Hughey’s petition for
    review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s August 31, 2018 order is
    dismissed as untimely.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1349 C.D. 2018

Judges: PER CURIAM

Filed Date: 6/27/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/27/2019