Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1981 |
| Citation | 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1,423 A.2d 1125 |
| Parties | YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD and Janice C. Madara, Respondents. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Christopher S. Underhill, Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker, Lancaster, for petitioner.
Richard F. Boyer, Bethlehem, for respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MacPHAIL and WILLIAMS, JJ.
This is an appeal by employer Yellow Freight System, Inc. (Yellow) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a fatal claim award to Janice C. Madara (claimant). The claimant is the widow of Francis C. Madara, Jr., who was killed on October 2, 1976, when the tractor-trailer he was driving for Yellow veered off the highway, rolled down an embankment and overturned.
The threshold question in this case is one of law: whether the untimeliness of the answer to the claim petition barred the employer from introducing evidence of an "affirmative" defense to the claim.
The claimant filed a petition on February 10, 1977. For some reason the petition was re-filed on February 16; and, service was made on the employer on February 23, 1977. No answer was filed until March 29, 1977, when the employer submitted an answer to the referee at the hearing scheduled for that date. That was 34 days after service of the petition, and hence 19 days in excess of the 15 days permitted for the filing of an answer by Section 416 of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act. 1
The employer's submitted answer raised the defense that the decedent at the time of his death was "acting in violation of law" and that compensation was not payable, by force of Section 301(a) of the Act. 2 Under that Section the right to compensation is defeated if the employer meets the burden of proving that the injury or death was caused by the employee's violation of law.
Counsel for the claimant objected to the filing of the answer on the ground that it was not timely filed under Section 416. Relying on that same Section claimant's counsel moved that all the allegations in the claim petition be deemed admitted for lack of a timely answer. The referee terminated the March 29 hearing by deciding to hold the claimant's objection and motion under advisement for a deferred ruling.
Although claimant's counsel did not state the extent of his objection in clear terms, it was clearly an objection based on the employer's violation of Section 416. 3 Further, the referee raised the issue of whether the untimely answer precluded the employer from introducing a defense to the petition. The referee indicated that in taking the matter under advisement he would consider the full effect of Section 416 of the Act.
On April 7, 1977, the referee rendered a ruling by letter that all of the allegations on the face of the claim petition were to be deemed admitted for lack of a timely answer as mandated by Section 416. However, the referee also ruled that the lack of a timely answer did not preclude the employer from evidencing an affirmative defense not involving facts alleged in the claim petition.
A referee's hearing was reconvened on July 28, 1977. At that time the employer, pursuant to the ruling, was permitted to present medical evidence of the alcohol content of the decedent's blood after the accident, as well as other evidence concerning the accident scene, to show that the decedent had been driving while intoxicated, in violation of The Vehicle Code. 4 According to the employer's evidence the alcohol level in the decedent's blood, about six hours after the accident, was 0.147%. 5 There was also testimony that there were no skid marks on the road, no signs of contact with another vehicle or abrupt movements on the road, and no apparent blow-out of any tire. However, there was no conclusive evidence as to the weather and road conditions at the time of the accident; although the road surface was wet due to rain when the police arrived at the accident scene a few hours later.
The referee accepted the testimony concerning the alcohol level in decedent Madara's blood and found that Madara was driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of The Vehicle Code. The referee also found that Madara had been physically impaired by the alcohol, and had fallen asleep at the wheel.
Notwithstanding the evidence and his own findings, the referee concluded that the employer had not met the burden of proof imposed by Section 301(a): of showing that the decedent's death was caused by his violation of law. According to the referee, the employer had failed to establish that Madara's falling asleep at the wheel was significantly contributed to by the ingestion of alcohol. The referee then entered an award for the claimant, based on the admitted allegations of the claim petition.
The Board affirmed the award, but in so doing determined that it was an error of law for the referee to admit the evidence of intoxication. The Board reasoned that to permit a defense under Section 301(a) would contradict the claimant's allegation that the accident occurred "while the decedent was employed" by Yellow and would contradict the allegation that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to asperation of stomach contents." 6 For reasons other than those advanced by the Board, we agree that the employer's evidence should not have been admitted.
On the facts of this case, it must be concluded that Section 416 barred Yellow from introducing evidence in support of its belated defense to the claim petition. For purposes of this case the critical elements of Section 416 are as follows:
Within fifteen days after a copy of any claim petition or other petition has been served upon an adverse party, he may file with the department or its referee an answer in the form prescribed by the department.
Every fact alleged in a claim petition not specifically denied by an answer so filed by an adverse party shall be deemed to be admitted by him ... If a party fails to file an answer and/or fails to appear in person or by counsel at the hearing without adequate excuse, the referee hearing the petition shall decide the matter on the basis of the petition and evidence presented. (Emphasis added.)
In applying this Section, we must emphasize that the referee ruled that the employer's failure to file its answer, within 15 days of being served with the claim petition, constituted an admission of the allegations in the petition. That decision was tantamount to a ruling that the employer had not shown an adequate excuse for not meeting the filing deadline fixed by Section 416, and therefore lost its right to file an answer at all. 7 In short, the case was in a posture as if the employer had filed no answer.
Given that posture of the case, it became incumbent upon the referee to follow the procedure set by Section 416 where no answer has been filed: to decide the matter on the basis of the petition and evidence presented. 8 The phrase "and evidence presented" must be construed to mean evidence presented by the petitioner. To construe the phrase to include evidence presented by the adverse party would negate the sanction for not filing an answer in accordance with the terms of the Section. That is, unless the phrase "and evidence presented" is restricted to evidence presented by the petitioner, the adverse party could refuse to file an answer and still come to the hearing and offer evidence in rebuttal or as an affirmative defense to the claim petition.
It is not a novel concept that "affirmative" defenses not raised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coyne v. W.C.A.B. (Villanova University)
...not alleged.19 We acknowledge that in Claimant's Petition for Review, she mentions that the WCJ and the Board erred in not granting her Yellow Freight Motion. Nonetheless, she fails to address this issue in either her statement of questions or argument section of her brief. As such, this is......
-
Cognex, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, No. 1556 C.D. 2009 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 3/26/2010)
...an order granting his petition pursuant to Section 416 of the Workers' Compensation Act1 (Act) and Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (in the absence of an adequate excuse, an employer's failure to file a timely answ......
-
Dandenault v. WCAB (PA FLYERS, LTD.)
...167 Pa.Cmwlth. 209, 647 A.2d 683 (1994),appeal granted, 540 Pa. 607, 655 A.2d 994 (1995); Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 423 A.2d 1125 (1981). However, this Court has made clear that an employer's failure to file a timely answer is not t......
-
Bensing v. WCAB (JAMES MORRISSEY, INC.)
...Appeal Board (Philadelphia Flyers, Ltd.), 728 A.2d 1001, 1004 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999). See also Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 423 A.2d 1125 (1981); Heraeus Electro Nite Company v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ulrich), 697 A.2d 603, 605......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 44, No. 51. December 20, 2014
...deemed admitted. It is also consistent with the long-standing Commonwealth Court decision in Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. WCAB (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). To avoid confusion however, the Department agrees with IFP that the proposed additional reference to petitions to review......