Changes to Specific Loss Benefits: PA Supreme Court Case Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc.
Written By: Jessica Bryant and Griffin Watson
Specific Loss benefits provide compensation for either total/partial amputations or as “complete loss of use for all practical intents and purposes” of specific body parts due to a work related injury. Specific loss dates back to the earliest days of human writing, and is in fact the oldest form of workers compensation law. The Law of Ur, dating back to approximately 2050 B.C.E. in ancient Sumeria, laid out a specific schedule of monetary compensation for specific injuries, not unlike that which we use today. In May of this year, a new chapter was added to the long history of Specific Loss in Pennsylvania.
In Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that an injured worker is entitled to specific loss benefits even after her death from work related injuries. This is a reversal of long held precedent in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that barred specific loss recoveries when the worker died as a result of their injuries.
On June 30, 2017, Steets was seriously injured in an explosion while working for Celebration Fireworks. On March 13, 2018, Celebration Fireworks accepted liability by filing an NCP that recognized Steets’ injuries as the amputation of multiple body parts. Unfortunately, Steets’ condition worsened significantly. The WCJ granted Steets’ petition for specific loss benefits. However, during the pendency of the decision before the Commonwealth Court, Steets died as a result of her injuries. On March 31, 2021, Steets’ estate filed Claim, Review, and Penalty Petitions seeking the payment of Steets’ funeral expenses and specific loss benefits. The WCJ granted the funeral expenses but denied the request for specific loss benefits. The WCAB subsequently affirmed the WCJ’s opinion and the estate appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Despite the long standing precedent of Estate of Harris, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had never actually addressed a question of its interpretation of Sections 306, 307, and 410 of the Workers Compensation Act before. Thus, this case arrived to the Court as a matter of first impression and the Court looked first to the statutory language of the WCA.
Looking to the plain language of Section 306 of the WCA, the Court found that Steets was awarded specific loss benefits for injuries that were separate and distinct from the injuries for which she was already receiving compensation appropriately. Therefore, when her total disability benefits ended, she would be entitled to receive specific loss benefits. When Steets died, her total disability benefits terminated, thereby triggering her specific loss benefits.
If you have any questions about how specific loss benefits may arise from a work-related injury or impact a worker’s compensation claim that you are defending against, the lawyers at Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC are available to answer any questions and talk through your options.