AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker, Johnny Higgins, appealed from two orders of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) related to his claim against his Employer, Advanced Tower Services, Inc., and its Insurer, Zurich. The appeals were regarding the denial of the Worker's application for bad faith and/or unfair claims processing and the denial of the Worker's motion for reconsideration. The Worker's grievances included late payment distribution by the Employer-Insurer and alleged violations of the Insurance Code.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims involving the Insurance Code, claimed the Employer-Insurer engaged in unfair claim processing and/or bad faith by being late in distributing payment and violating the Insurance Code, contended the WCJ erred by allowing Employer-Insurer to file their response and admit exhibits late, and argued the WCJ miscalculated the interest rate and the number of days of post-judgment interest recoverable.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Defended their actions by noting the Worker's claims of unfair claim processing and bad faith were unfounded, argued the WCJ had jurisdiction over the Worker's claims since they argued violations of the WCA through alleged Insurance Code violations, and justified their late filing and exhibit admission as within the discretion of the WCJ.

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on claims involving the Insurance Code.
• Whether the Employer-Insurer engaged in unfair claim processing and/or bad faith by being late in distributing payment and violating a provision of the Insurance Code.
• Whether the WCJ erred by allowing Employer-Insurer to file their response and admit exhibits late.
• Whether the WCJ miscalculated the interest rate and the number of days of post-judgment interest recoverable against Employer-Insurer.

Disposition

• The Court reversed and remanded for the WCJ to recalculate post-judgment interest beginning on September 24, 2021, but affirmed the WCJ's decisions in all other respects.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge: Concluded that the WCJ had jurisdiction over the Worker's claims since they pertained to violations of the WCA, even though the alleged violations were of the Insurance Code (para 2). The Court found the Worker's arguments regarding unfair claim processing and bad faith, timeliness of response, and admission of evidence by Employer-Insurer to be unpersuasive or unsupported by developed argument (paras 3-8). However, the Court agreed with the Worker that the WCJ miscalculated the number of days for which post-judgment interest was owed, determining that interest should have begun accruing on the date the original order approving the settlement was entered (paras 9-13).
  Concurrence: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurred with IVES, Judge's opinion and reasoning.