Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

5-month visit to India doesn't warrant suspension of benefits

In Pennsylvania, a worker may be found to have withdrawn from the workforce if he resides in another country for an extended period or if he does not indicate that he intends to move back to the United States if he learns of suitable employment in his usual employment area.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Chellappan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 26 PAWCLR 79 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2011).

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the workers' compensation judge's grant of the employer's suspension petition.

What it means: In Pennsylvania, a worker who relocates to another country may be found to have withdrawn from the workforce if he resides in another country for an extended period or if he does not present any evidence indicating that his absence is temporary or that he intends to move back to the United States if he learns of suitable employment in his usual employment area.

Summary: The board ruled that the WCJ erred in suspending the worker's benefits because his visit to India was for only five months. The employer filed a suspension petition alleging that the worker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce when he went to India. The WCJ granted the petition. The board determined that the WCJ should not have suspended the worker's benefits. The employer did not establish that the worker voluntarily withdrew himself from the workforce. The worker did not relocate or move. He was merely visiting his family's home in India on a temporary basis, and he informed the employer that he expected to return in five months.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

June 30, 2011

Copyright 2011© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.