Pennsylvania Declares Use of AMA Guides Unconstitutional
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, last week, declared the state’s statutorily mandated use of “the most recent version of” the AMA Guides to determine impairment ratings under its workers’ compensation act to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The decision, in Protz v. Derry Area School District, has thrown the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system into disarray. Daniel Moore of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, explains:
Thousands of injured workers statewide could receive more benefits after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a key part of the workers’ compensation law that has governed how the state assesses workplace injuries for the past 20 years.
The 6-1 ruling, issued last week, was a surprising and significant shakeup of the law, which distributes payments to workers as they recover from injuries sustained while on the job. It also brought a favorable outcome for a 54-year-old Westmoreland County woman who badly hurt her knee when she slipped and fell at work 10 years ago.
“This is the most significant workers’ compensation ruling in Pennsylvania in the past 30 years,” said Thomas C. Baumann, a Pittsburgh workers’ compensation attorney who brought a case on behalf of Mary Ann Protz, who was employed as an hall monitor for the Derry Area School District, in 2011.
The decision may have larger, national, implications. Judge David Langham, of Florida has been following Protz for several years, and analyzes the case here:
What is prohibited by the “non-delegation doctrine” is not delegation per se, but “incorporating, sight unseen, subsequent modifications to such standards without also providing adequate criteria to guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated authority.” (Slip opinion at P. 16).
What is perhaps curious, in light of those statements, is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nonetheless concluded that the Pennsylvania statute is unconstitutional. As I discussed in As Florida Waits, Commonwealth Court Holds Pennsylvania Statute, North Dakota’s Supreme Court was presented a near identical issue and concluded that language requiring “use of the ‘most recent’ or ‘most current’ edition of the AMA Guides should be interpreted to mean the most recent edition at the time of the statute’s enactment.” (Babitsky, §3.04) (McCabe v. North Dakota Workers’ Compensation Bureau, 567 N.W. 2d 201 (N.D. 1997). That Court’s conclusion was based upon statutory construction and traditional analysis.
The Texas workers’ compensation system does not mandate the use of the most recent version of the AMA Guides. Rather, the Texas system requires that the Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation identify the version of the AMA Guides to be followed, which is currently the 4th Edition.
FOLIO
