Penn. court finds injured worker waited too long to file claim
A Pennsylvania court ruled the burden of timely notice rests with the injured work, regardless of injury severity.
On July 14, 2019, Kelly Twaroski smacked his head on an overhead pipe while working as a chemical operator for BASF Corporation. The pain, according to Twaroski, “was more like a little bee sting,” and he only experienced a slight tingling in his hands, which did not prevent him from completing his shift or the rest of that work week.
The plant then closed for one week, during which the tingling in Twaroski’s hands worsened to the point that shortly after the plant reopened he informed his supervisor that he could not come to work because he did not feel he could properly execute the functions of his job. However, he still did not report the July 14 incident, allegedly because he did not experience any neck pain or think his tingling hands were connected to the incident.
Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured employee has 120 days from the date of the injury to inform the employer of the work-related injury; however, this period does not begin running “until the employe[e] knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the existence of the injury and its possible relationship to his employment.” The latter part of this statute is sometimes called “the discovery rule.”
Twaroski was diagnosed with and had surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands. He later underwent an MRI, which revealed “something serious in [his] neck.” Twaroski visited a neurosurgeon and was scheduled for surgery. He filed a claim for a work-related injury in February 2020, which was denied based on untimely filing. At a hearing in May, Twaroski admitted he hadn’t reported the July incident until late 2019 at the earliest, or even early 2020. The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) affirmed the denial of benefits. Twaroski appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the WCJ.
On appeal to the court, Twaroski claimed he had notified BASF of his injury in early August 2019, when he could not return to work because the tingling in his hands rendered him unable to perform his work-related duties. He argued that the discovery rule meant the notice period did not start until he discovered the extent of his injuries. He cited East Hempfield Township v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Stahl) for support. The holding of that case stated, in part, that a claimant has to have either actual or constructive knowledge that his or her injury could be work-related in order for the 120-day period to begin.
As Twaroski said he didn’t know how bad his neck injury was, or even that it was work-related, until well after the incident itself, his report was timely. BASF, on the other hand, pointed out that Twaroski had admitted experiencing neck pain immediately after the July 14 incident. The fact that he shook off the pain and continued working did not erase the contemporaneous relationship between Twaroski’s neck pain and the incident itself.
The Commonwealth Court found that the decision of the WCJ was supported by credible evidence. The burden of timely notice to BASF was Twaroski’s to prove; he experienced neck pain immediately after hitting his head, though it may have been no worse than an insect bite, and therefore should have known his injuries were work-related.
Insurance Coverage Law Center editor’s note: This case serves as a harsh reminder of why it is imperative for employees to report injuries that occur at their workplace. Employer notification laws will vary among states, but it would be difficult to find a court that would overturn the decision of a WCJ simply because the state’s notice statute produced a hard-to-swallow result. Even if it requires no more than a band-aid, an injury should be reported.
Related: