Opinion
No. 2125 C.D. 2013
04-04-2014
Sonya M. Seedenburg, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Forever Broadcasting), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
Sonya M. Seedenburg (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) determination that Claimant was ineligible for benefits during the period of her incarceration and granted Forever Broadcasting's (Employer) modification petition. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On August 29, 2005, Claimant sustained a work related injury during the course and scope of her employment. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 49a.) Employer issued a Notice of Compensation Payable, which described Claimant's injuries as cervical and low back strains and left ring finger contusion. (Id.) As a result of her work-related injury, Claimant was prescribed OxyContin, Roxycodone, and Fentanyl patches for pain in her neck and back. (Id. at 50a.) While taking her prescribed pain medication, Claimant was arrested three times for driving while under the influence of her prescribed pain medications. (Id.) Claimant's doctor never told her not to drive while taking her medications. (Id.) Claimant pled guilty to the charges and was in jail for approximately 90 days, from January 3, 2009 to March 31, 2009. (Id.) Following her release from prison, Claimant was placed under house arrest with electronic monitoring for nine months, from April 1, 2009 to December 2009. (Id.) Claimant was on work release while she was in prison and under house arrest. (Id.) Claimant did not notify Employer or its insurance carrier that she was in jail or under house arrest. (Id.) As of January 5, 2010, there were no further restrictions on Claimant's ability to move freely. (Id.)
On October 12, 2010, Employer filed a Modification/Suspension Petition, alleging that Claimant improperly received compensation benefits while she was in jail and under house arrest. (Id. at 49a.) A WCJ conducted a hearing, after which the WCJ issued an opinion and order concluding that Claimant's benefits should have been suspended while Claimant was in jail and under house arrest. As a result, the WCJ modified Employer's future payments to allow Employer to recover the overpayments made during Claimant's incarceration. (Id. at 40a-42a.) Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the decision of the WCJ. (Id. at 49a-52a.) The Board concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive benefits while in jail and under house arrest, and that the WCJ's order modifying Employer's payments was proper. (Id. at 51a.) Claimant then petitioned this Court for review.
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in suspending her benefits for the year she was in jail and under house arrest. She argues that this Court has interpreted wrongly the term "incarcerated" in Section 306(a.1) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) to include time claimants are in jail and/or under house arrest, even though the claimants are eligible for/on work release.
This Court's standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 4 of the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, 77 P.S. § 511.1. --------
Section 306(a.1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]othing in this act shall require payment of compensation . . . for any period during which the employe is incarcerated after a conviction . . . ." The General Assembly did not intend to "narrowly limit the term 'incarcerat[ed]' solely to confinement in a penal facility." Henkels & McCoy, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hendrie), 565 Pa. 493, 500, 776 A.2d 951, 955 (2001). This Court, in interpreting Section 306(a.1), has noted that the "Legislature did not create an exception in Section 306[(a.1)] of the Act for prisoners on work release, and we cannot add an exception to a statute that the Legislature did not see fit to include." Brinker's Int'l Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Weissenstein), 721 A.2d 406, 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Thus, this Court held that Section 306(a.1) disqualifies a claimant from receiving workers' compensation benefits while incarcerated, even if eligible for work release. Id. Similarly, this Court has held that claimants under house arrest, even if eligible for work release, are not eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits while serving their sentences. Moore v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Babcock & Wilcox Co.), 811 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Claimant's sole contention on appeal is that this Court has incorrectly interpreted Section 306(a.1) to include claimants, such as herself, who are in jail or under house arrest and are eligible for work release. We are not persuaded by Claimant's argument that our precedent in this area is in error and, therefore, decline Claimant's invitation to revisit it. As such, we note that the undisputed facts in this case establish that, under Brinker's and Moore, Claimant was not eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits while in jail and under house arrest, despite her eligibility for work release. Employer is therefore entitled to modification of the payments owed to Claimant in order to recover the benefits improperly paid while Claimant was incarcerated. See Mino v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crime Prevention Ass'n), 990 A.2d 832, 842 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc) (holding that Employer was entitled to offset against future payment of benefits in order to recoup overpayments made in belief that they were necessary to discharge its duties and to prevent unjust enrichment of claimant), appeal denied, 607 Pa. 697, 4 A.3d 159 (2010).
For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Board.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2014, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge