As all staff’ compensation practitioners know, our apply has been eternally modified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Though the Pennsylvania staff’ compensation bar took the COVID-19 pandemic in stride, with super effort and effectivity on the a part of the bureau and its director, our apply has been gradual to return to the pre-pandemic regular. Whereas Pennsylvania Bar Affiliation occasions, persevering with authorized training packages, and even shopper and legislation agency features have returned to in-person, nearly all of staff’ compensation hearings and depositions are nonetheless being performed just about. This has posed the query of whether or not the apply of staff’ compensation will ever return to the way it was pre-pandemic.
The subject of digital versus in-person hearings and depositions was lately addressed by the Employees’ Compensation Attraction Board opinion in Steibler v. PHINo. Attraction Case: A22-0486, 2023 (Pa. Work. Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2023). The Employees’ Compensation Attraction Board held that the employees’ compensation decide (WCJ) had abused her discretion through a violation of the claimant’s due course of rights when she cited lingering COVID-19 considerations as the idea for denying the claimant’s request that each one testimony, together with the testimony of the claimant, be accomplished through an in-person listening to, versus a digital listening to. The Employees’ Compensation Attraction Board defined that the explanation the WCJ abused her discretion is grounded in Part 131.54 of the Particular Guidelines of Administrative Observe and Process Earlier than Employees’ Compensation Judges, which states, “on the discretion of the decide, the hearings could also be performed by phone or different digital means if the events don’t object.” 34 Pa. Code Part 131.54. The Employees’ Compensation Attraction Board reasoned that “as a result of Part 131.54 doesn’t permit the WCJ discretion to disclaim that request when there’s an objection to the video listening to, we conclude that the WCJ acted opposite to the particular regulation governing the style and conduct of hearings earlier than the WCJ.”
