# Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 21, 2009 · 601 Pa. 524

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691845

## Case

- **Full name:** CINRAM MANUFACTURING, INC. and PMA Group, Appellants v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (HILL), Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 21, 2009
- **Citations:** 601 Pa. 524; 975 A.2d 577; 2009 Pa. LEXIS 1324
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 89 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691845

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that petitions under the first paragraph of Section 413(a) deal with "[c]orrective amendments” that address “an inaccuracy in the identification of an existing injury,” while petitions under the second paragraph deal with amendments "addressing subsequently-arising …
- explaining that petitions under the first paragraph of Section 413(a
- holding that statements that are inessential to the reasoning in a judicial opinion are not binding in future cases
- stating that “the burden rests with claimants to establish the existence of additional compensable injuries.”

## Opinion text

*539 Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I concur with the majority because I believe a workers’ compensation judge may correct materially incorrect information in a notice of compensation payable pursuant to 77 P.S. § 771. See Jeanes Hospital v. WCAB (Hass), 582 Pa. 405 , 872 A.2d 159, 169 (2005) (Eakin, J., dissenting) (although WCJ may amend materially incorrect information, claimant must file new claim petition to receive benefits for injuries not arising as natural consequence of original injury accepted in NCP). However, this Court has stated “[w]hen an NCP description of injury does not correctly reflect the actual injury or enumerate all of the injuries sustained in a work-related incident ... a claimant must file a Petition to Review Notice of Compensation Payable, which is treated like a claim petition.” Id., at 169 (majority opinion).
This is the law of this Commonwealth; I do not believe it is prudent or necessary to allow a WCJ to amend an NCP in all circumstances.
Here, medical evidence showed Claimant’s disc herniation worsened after his work-related injury. Amending the NCP to include the aggravation of Claimant’s disc herniation — a diagnosis more accurately and fully reflecting Claimant’s original injury — remedied the materially incorrect NCP. Because the original NCP was materially incorrect in omitting the disc herniation, the WCJ properly amended the NCP to correct the omission of the aggravation of Claimant’s disc herniation. See, e.g., 77 P.S. § 771 (permitting WCJ to amend materially incorrect NCPs); Jeanes Hospital , at 169 (Eakin, J., dissenting) (WCJ may amend materially incorrect NCP).
Furthermore, I agree with the majority that due process is not implicated here, because Employer was able to present ample medical evidence. See Majority Op., at 533 n. 8, 975 A.2d at 582. Additionally, Employer failed to raise a due process claim, and “[ijssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). However, the importance of due process in workers’ compensation cases cannot be understated, as work *540 ers’ compensation cases require extensive preparation and the insight of expert testimony. A party can only be adequately prepared to defend a request to amend an NCP if it has ample notice; requests to amend an NCP should be denied unless adequate notice was given to the opposing party. Jemes Hospital, at 170 (Eakin, J., dissenting) (notice is required for reasons of fundamental fairness).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691845. Public record. Not legal advice.