Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
1993 Pa. LEXIS 232, 632 A.2d 1302, 534 Pa. 327 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res judicata, specifically issue preclusion, bars an employer from relitigating an employee's initial diagnosis in a petition to terminate workers' compensation benefits when the disability is based on an irreversible occupational disease.
Facts:
- Thomas Hebden, a coal miner for over thirty years, was diagnosed with coal worker's pneumoconiosis, an occupationally acquired lung disease.
- As a result of the diagnosis, Hebden was determined to be partially disabled as of August 25, 1983.
- Approximately four years after the initial disability determination, Hebden's employer, Bethenergy Mines, Inc., sought to terminate his benefits.
- In a subsequent hearing, medical experts for Bethenergy Mines, Inc. testified that Hebden did not have pneumoconiosis, but rather a non-occupational condition of bronchial asthma.
- One of the employer's doctors admitted that if Hebden did not have pneumoconiosis at the time of the hearing, he would not have had it in 1983 either.
- Hebden's medical expert, Dr. Robert Klemens, testified that pneumoconiosis is an irreversible and progressive disease, meaning once a person has it, they have it for life and it only gets worse.
Procedural Posture:
- A workers' compensation referee awarded Thomas Hebden partial disability benefits in an order dated July 19, 1985, which was not appealed by either party.
- On October 30, 1987, the employer, Bethenergy Mines, Inc., filed a petition to terminate Hebden's benefits.
- A new referee granted the employer's petition, finding Hebden was no longer disabled and ordering that his benefits be terminated.
- Hebden (as appellant) appealed the referee's decision to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed the termination of benefits.
- Hebden (as appellant) then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which, sitting en banc, also affirmed the decision in favor of the employer, Bethenergy Mines, Inc. (as appellee).
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted Appellant Hebden's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res judicata, or issue preclusion, bar an employer from relitigating an employee's initial diagnosis of an irreversible occupational disease in a subsequent petition to terminate workers' compensation benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Papadakos, J.
Yes. The doctrine of res judicata bars an employer from relitigating an employee's initial diagnosis of an irreversible occupational disease in a petition to terminate benefits. The original, unappealed award of benefits was a final determination of Hebden's disability from pneumoconiosis. The employer's subsequent attempt to argue that Hebden never had the disease is a 'disguised attempt to relitigate what has already been settled.' For a condition established as irreversible, an employer cannot seek to terminate benefits by challenging the initial diagnosis; they would first have to prove the disease itself is reversible. The only evidence in the record indicated that pneumoconiosis is irreversible and progressive, a point the employer failed to rebut. Allowing employers to continually relitigate settled diagnoses would undermine the workers' compensation system and harass disability victims.
Concurring - Cappy, J.
Yes. The employer's action constituted impermissible relitigation because the unrebutted testimony established that pneumoconiosis is irreversible. However, it should be noted that if future advances in medical science were to make a once-irreversible disease reversible, an employer should have the right to establish that fact in a subsequent termination hearing. That circumstance was not present in this case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of finality in workers' compensation awards by applying issue preclusion to the underlying medical diagnosis. It establishes a significant procedural safeguard for employees with irreversible occupational diseases, preventing employers from mounting collateral attacks on initial disability findings. By placing the burden on the employer to first prove that a disease is reversible before seeking to terminate benefits, the court protects claimants from the harassment of repeatedly having to defend their settled medical condition. This precedent solidifies the finality of administrative judgments and limits the scope of modification petitions under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
