- Home
-
Attorneys
75+ Attorneys in 7 Offices
Cipriani & Werner has over 75 attorneys in 7 cities with expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, workers’ compensation, and more.
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Scranton
Marlton
Wheeling
Charleston
-
Practice Areas
Our Practice Areas
Cipriani & Werner has built expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, and workers’ compensation.
-
Offices
Our Offices
Cipriani & Werner has offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia.
650 Washington Road Suite 700Pittsburgh, PA 15228Phone: (412) 563-25001011 Mumma Road Suite 201Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145Phone: (717) 975-9600450 Sentry Parkway Suite 200Blue Bell, PA 19422Phone: (610) 567-0700409 Lackawanna Ave Suite 402Scranton, PA 18503-2059Phone: (570) 347-0600155 Gaither Drive Suite BMt. Laurel, NJ 08054Phone: (856) 761-38001144 Market Street Suite 300Wheeling, WV 26003Phone: (304) 232-3600500 Virginia St. East Suite 750Charleston, WV 25301Phone: (304) 341-0500 -
C&W Journal
C&W Journal
Cipriani & Werner provides legal insight for business professionals.
May 2012 Edition
Box 4 Denial Back in Play?
Source
Gumm v. W.C.A.B.(J. Allen Steel), 942 A.2d 222 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008.)
Analysis
In the wake of the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Jordan v. WCAB (Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.), the box 4 denial appeared to have seen its last days as an effective instrument for the carrier. However, the Commonwealth Court in Gumm v. WCAB, 942 A.2d 222 (Pa.Cmwlth., 2008.), determined that there are circumstances when a Box 4 denial is still appropriate. In Gumm, the Claimant sustained an ankle injury. The carrier initially issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable. Later, the carrier issued a box 4 denial and a box 6 denial. The Commonwealth Court found a genuine dispute existed as to the nature of Claimant's work injury, the severity of the injury and the description of the injury. The Commonwealth Court held Employer did not “misuse” the Notice of Denial. Rather, it held that the Employer complied with the procedures required by the Act as the denial was used to refute Claimant's claim on the basis that disability did not result from the injury. The Court determined this was consistent with Employer's position that the causes of Claimant's problems were not the work incident but rather the pre-existing ankle problems.
What it Means for You
This is an interesting development for carriers with claims in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court seems to suggest that should a genuine dispute exist, and if the carrier complies with proper procedure, the Box 4 denial is an effective instrument to deny a Claim Petition. However, extreme caution should still be exercised when issuing a Box 4 denial. It appears the Gumm case may be the exception to the rule set forth in Jordan. Contact a C&W workers’ compensation attorney to discuss your options when determining which type of denial is appropriate for your particular claim.
Journal Edition
July 2008
