T.G. Eiler v. City of Philadelphia (WCAB)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Thomas G. Eiler, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1299 C.D. 2022
: SUBMITTED: November 6, 2023
City of Philadelphia (Workers’ :
Compensation Appeal Board), :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: December 18, 2023
Thomas G. Eiler, Claimant, petitions for review from the decision and
order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed the decision of
the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) modifying Claimant’s benefits from
Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits to Temporary Partial Disability (TPD)
benefits for 500 weeks. We affirm.
The facts of this case are not in dispute and the matter presents purely
legal issues. Claimant was injured in 2008 in the course of his employment. The
City of Philadelphia, Employer, accepted the injury by notice of compensation
payable. An Independent Rating Evaluation (IRE) was completed on January 20,
2022, finding a 15% total body impairment based upon the relevant American
Medical Association impairment guidelines. Based on this, Employer filed a
petition to modify benefits from TTD to TPD pursuant to Section 306(a.3) of the
Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 which was added by Section 1 of the Act of
October 24, 2018, P.L. 714, No. 111 (Act 111). Counsel for Claimant stipulated to
the modification of temporary benefits from total to partial, effective January 20,
2022, which was approved by the WCJ in her decision and order. In the stipulation,
Claimant preserved his right to challenge the constitutionality of the IRE provisions
of the Act. Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed. Claimant’s petition for
review to this Court ensued.
On appeal, Claimant raises the following issues: (1) whether applying
Act 111 to a claim such as his, where the injury occurred before Act 111’s effective
date, would divest Claimant of a vested property right in violation of the right to due
course of law under the Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution;2 and (2)
whether Act 111 constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
With regard to his first issue, Claimant argues that Act 111 is
unconstitutional because it allows Employer to request an IRE based upon weeks of
indemnity benefits paid before the effective date of Act 111. Claimant also argues
that Act 111 is a substantive amendment to the Act since it limits a claimant's partial
disability benefits to 500 weeks, whereas before Act 111, claimants could potentially
receive benefits for their lifetimes. As a result, Claimant argues that Act 111 cannot
1
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 511.3. Section 306(a.3) was added by
Section 1 of Act of October 24, 2018, P.L. 714, No. 111.
2
The Remedies Clause provides, in relevant part:
All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in
his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due
course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial
or delay . . . .
PA. CONST. art. I, § 11.
2
be applied retroactively to an injury that predates its enactment without violating the
Remedies Clause. Claimant distinguishes Bible v. Department of Labor and
Industry, 696 A.2d 1149 (Pa. 1997), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
retroactive application of another provision of the Act did not violate the
Constitution, asserting that there the rights had not yet been adjudicated, whereas
here, they are vested. Claimant asserts “‘[c]laimants have a vested right in the
continuation of workers[’] compensation benefits until found to be ineligible,’”
which cannot be divested without violating the Constitution. [Claimant’s Brief at
26 (quoting Giant Eagle Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weigand),
764 A.2d 663, 666 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)]. Although Claimant recognizes that the
Court rejected a constitutional attack on Act 111 in Pierson v. Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC), 252 A.3d
1169 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 261 A.3d 378 (Pa. 2021), Claimant nonetheless
asks this Court to reconsider that decision. Regarding his second issue, Claimant
argues that Act 111 is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and therefore
unconstitutional on that basis as well.
We note that Claimant’s appeal represents only one of numerous
constitutional challenges to Act 111 on similar or, indeed, identical3 grounds. The
Court has uniformly rejected these arguments. See Pierson (holding that Act 111
does not violate vested rights because of reasonable expectation that TTD benefits
may change under the Act); DiPaolo v. UPMC Magee Women’s Hosp. (Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd.), 278 A.3d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (same), appeal denied, 278
A.3d 430 (Pa. 2023); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 219 A.3d 306 (Pa.
3
See Zaborowski v. City of Phila. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 617 C.D.
2022, filed Mar. 28, 2023).
3
Cmwlth. 2019) (Act 111 is not unconstitutional delegation of authority by General
Assembly), aff’d, (Pa., No. 88 MAP 2019, filed Aug. 18, 2020).
In light of the foregoing, we affirm.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Thomas G. Eiler, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1299 C.D. 2022
:
City of Philadelphia (Workers’ :
Compensation Appeal Board), :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2023, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita