A Pennsylvania state court judge has ruled that the Pittsburgh Steelers do not have to pay
attorney fees related to a former player’s workers compensation case.
Specifically, the court found that although Chidi F. Iwuoma clearly suffered injuries while playing for the Steelers, he should not be categorized as “disabled” since he went on to play for other professional football teams. Thus the protest of the Steelers was “reasonable,” pursuant to Pennsylvania law.
Iwuoma played for the Steelers from October 2002 to September 2006 and from December 2006 to September 2007, where he established a reputation as one of the Steelers’ best special teams’ players.
On August 20, 2005, he sustained a work injury to his left shoulder during a pre-season game. Employer’s trainer and medical staff provided treatment. As a result of his injury, Claimant missed two weeks of practice and games, but was able to finish the season.
On August 31, 2006, Iwuoma suffered a concussion and lost consciousness during a game. A week later, he was cut by the Steelers. Iwuoma continued to try out and compete for short periods of time with other teams.
A hearing was held on October 6, 2008 before the WCJ, at which Iwuoma testified that he still had pain from various injuries he had suffered. He also claimed that since his concussion on August 31, 2006, he had experienced sleep disturbances, headaches, and poor memory.
Iwuoma also submitted the reports of Claude S. Munday, Ph.D. The reports revealed that Dr. Munday examined him on November 6, 2008 in reference to his loss of consciousness during a game on August 31, 2006. Based on the medical history provided by Iwuoma, Dr. Munday concluded that he had sustained prior concussions, but the August 2006 concussion was the most significant. Dr. Munday also concluded that Iwuoma “clearly has some memory and mental flexibility difficulties at the high end of the spectrum. . . . It is quite apparent that these difficulties are due to the multiple concussions.”
On August 27, 2010, the WCJ issued a decision concluding that Iwuoma had met his burden of establishing work-related injuries to his left shoulder and left wrist and sustained multiple concussions. The WCJ awarded disability benefits as of September 2, 2007, his final day of work with Steelers. The WCJ also awarded him attorney’s fees, holding that the Steeler’s contests were unreasonable, since its own medical staff and trainer had provided treatment to Iwuoma, and thus, was aware of his injuries and had found them to be work related. The Steelers appealed the award of attorney’s fees to the Board. By order dated June 15, 2011, the Board determined that the WCJ erred when it concluded that the Steelers’ contest was not reasonable and reversed the WCJ’s award of attorney’s fees. Iwuoma appealed.
He argued that the WCJ properly awarded attorney’s fees because the Steelers were aware of his injuries but contested the claim petitions. The court disagreed.
“Section 440(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)4 provides in relevant part:
“In any contested case where the insurer has contested liability in whole or in part . . . the
employee . . . in whose favor the matter at issue has been finally determined in whole or in part shall be awarded, in addition to the award for compensation, a reasonable sum for costs incurred for attorney’s fee . . . Provided, that cost for attorney fees may be excluded when a reasonable basis for the contest has been established by the employer or the insurer.
“Pursuant to Section 440 of the Act, an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing claimant is mandatory, unless the employer can establish a reasonable basis for its contest. Bell’s Repair Serv. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Murphy, Jr.), 850 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). ‘An employer’s contest is reasonable if the contest was brought to resolve a genuinely disputed issue, not merely to harass the claimant.’ Jordan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Phila. Newspapers, Inc.), 921 A.2d 27, 42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
“To be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, a claimant must establish both that he
suffered a work-related injury and that the injury resulted in disability. Jordan. ‘Disability is synonymous with loss of earning power.’ Ginyard v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 733 A.2d 674, 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). At the June 29, 2009 hearing before the WCJ, the Steelers acknowledged that it was not contesting that Iwuoma suffered work-related injuries, and in fact, demonstrated that it had paid for medical treatment for his injuries. The Steelers did, however, challenge that his suffered disability after the injuries. This court has previously found employer contests to be reasonable where the employer has reasonably questioned whether work-related injuries resulted in disability. See, e.g., Hurst v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Preston Trucking Co.), 823 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Ginyard.”
Also bolstering the Steelers’ claim was the fact that his “own testimony established that he attended workouts with at least four professional football teams after September 2, 2007, and that he, in fact, played professional football with the Tennessee Titans for two games in December 2007. The record establishes that through December 2007, even Iwuoma believed he could play professional football. It was only after he played with the Titans that Iwuoma came to believe he could not. Given the evidence presented, we conclude that his disability as of September 2, 2007 was a genuinely disputed issue and, thus, the Steelers’ contest was reasonable.
Chidi F. Iwuoma v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.); Common. Ct. Pa.; No. 1300 C.D. 2011, 2012 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 271; 4/18/12
