PaTLA Amicus Curiae Briefs Available

PaTLA shares its Amicus Curiae briefs at this site. Several briefs in Workers' Compensation Matters appear at the bottom of the page.

Supreme Court Finds Abnormal Working Conditions in Harassment Case

In RAG (CYPRUS) Emerald Resources, L.P. v. WCAB (Hopton), Appeal of: Ronald A. Hopton, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's holding that the Claimant's supervisor's "...course of conduct persisted in and clearly calculated to cause severe emotional distress on the part of the claimant..." (WCJ finding) was not an abnormal working condition. The Commonwealth Court relied on Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Guaracino), 544 Pa. 203, 675 A.2d 1213 (1996) to hold the Claimant's response was a subjective reaction to normal working conditions.

The Supreme Court concluded the Commonwealth Court "abused its discretion by not limiting its review to determining whether the WCJ’s factual findings were supported by the record and, instead, focusing on a brief section of testimony not included in the WCJ’s factual findings to support its own conclusion that Rossi’s comments were “normal in the mining industry.” " The Supreme Court went on to find aggravation of the Claimant's pre-existing PTSD was not a subjective reaction of the Claimant and resulted from abnormal working conditions.

Law.Com Article

Legal Newsline Article

Study Finding Long Term Use of Narcotics in Low Back Pain Cases is Suspect

A study from Yale University published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found long term effectiveness of opioids for low pack pain was not conclusive and abuse was reported in 24 per cent of cases.

A Judge's Perspective on Mediation

This article by Federal District Court Judge Dan Aaron Polster for the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution provides an excellent summary of mediation. Judge Polster explains the benefits of mediation and discusses considerations for a Judge who will mediate a case that will go to trial before the Judge.

WCJs are the trier of fact, and Judge Polster doesn't believe a judge who is the trier of fact should mediate the Judge's own case. He reasons: "If statements (the parties) made to me regarding the facts of the case conflict with their trial testimony, I would be placed in the untenable position of either ignoring what I knew, or making findings based upon facts outside of the record."

Because a WCJ is a Judge under Article IV of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and because the Act specifically grants investigative powers, a WCJ should never be in a situation where a conflict between the parties statements to the WCJ in mediation and the record testimony is unresolved. However, justice in the adjudication will come at the expense of breach of the confidentiality of the mediation by the Mediator/WCJ.

Under Act 147, a decision cannot be circulated until the case is mediated, except where mediation is futile. Mediation is futile only when no losing party could convince the Board that the case should have been mediated. It is not enough that the parties and Judge agree mediation seems futile. The Board has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight as to whether a party could have done better had they mediated. If no mediation was held, a decision could be vacated. The parties therefore should be prepared to mediate every case, and, as stated by Judge Polster, mediate as soon as is practical.