HARRISBURG — A state appeals panel recently rejected a labor union’s challenge of changes to Workers’ Compensation Act implementation.
The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO filed objections in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to a 2018 Workers' Comp change. Respondents include Gov. Tom Wolf and Labor and Industry Secretary Gerard Oleksiak, as well as the commonwealth itself. Judges Renee Cohn Jubelirer, Patricia McCullough and Christine Fizzano Cannon heard arguments on Sept. 10 in Harrisburg. Jubelirer wrote the opinion issued on Oct. 11.
The union said the amendment Wolf signed in 2018 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution in that it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. Leaders of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives applied to intervene, arguing they have a legally enforceable interest.
According to the panel, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found a similar section of law unconstitutional in 2017. At issue are rules for impairment rating evaluations and whether it is proper to delegate criteria establishment to the American Medical Association automatically through revisions to its “Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,” as was done in the earlier law, or if lawmakers are required to vote on which version of the guide applies.
“If the General Assembly adopts an existing set of standards as its own, there is no delegation and no violation of article II, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” Jubelirer wrote, reinforcing the position the only problem would be proactively adopting future editions or revisions.
The panel drew comparisons to the adoption of building codes and said the union’s concerns about the AMA’s process of enacting its own standards aren’t relevant to legislative action because lawmakers had the finished product in hand when determining whether to codify it for Pennsylvania.
After determining the AFL-CIO failed to argue the law is unconstitutional, the panel said the union couldn’t establish its right to an injunction preventing the law from taking effect. Having sustained both counts, the panel dismissed the petition for review.