holding that although WCJ did not formally indicate that she was amending the description contained in the NCP, by crediting the claimant’s expert and denying the employer’s termination petition, the WCJ implicitly expanded the description of the injury to include an aggravation of the claimant’s preexisting stenosis
How later courts described this case
- holding that although WCJ did not formally indicate that she was amending the description contained in the NCP, by crediting the claimant’s expert and denying the employer’s termination petition, the WCJ implicitly expanded the description of the injury to include an aggravation of the claimant’s preexisting stenosis
- holding an employer that has paid an injured worker an exces *846 sive amount of money under the mistaken belief that the sum paid was necessary for the discharge of a duty is entitled to an offset to preclude the claimant’s unjust enrichment
- holding an employer that has paid an injured worker an excessive amount of money under the mistaken belief that the sum paid was necessary for the discharge of a duty is entitled to an offset to preclude the claimant's unjust enrichment
- employer permitted to recoup workers’ compensation disability benefits erroneously paid
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
While I join the majority opinion in finding that the remand is necessary, I write separately to note that the cases relied on by the majority —Kiebler v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Specialty Tire of America), 738 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999); Fahringer, McCarty & Grey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Green), 529 A.2d 56 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987); and a decision of our Supreme Court —Lucey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vy-Cal Plastics), 557 Pa. 272 , 732 A.2d 1201 (1999)—only allow payments from future compensation. If Claimant’s benefits are again terminated, I would hold that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to enter a general judgment and order payment from a claimant directly and, as the term suggests, can only order an offset from future benefits. I would also hold that an offset can only be collected from benefits awarded in the proceeding that is before the WCJ, and the amount of offset is not “banked” to be offset from any compensation, if any, awarded in future proceedings.