Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Pennsylvania: Protz Should Not Be Applied in "Fully Retroactive" Manner

June 27, 2020 (1 min read)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 639 Pa. 645, 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017)]("Protz II), should be utilized in all cases still pending at the time it was announced by the high court; it was not, however, to be applied in a fully retroactive manner, held the state's Commonwealth Court. Accordingly, where more than three years had elapsed since the claimant's last receipt of disability compensation, she could not reopen her case under Protz II. The Commonwealth Court added that its decision was in keeping with the general rule in Pennsylvania cases, that a litigant whose appeal is still pending may receive the benefit of the constitutional decision, but not litigants whose cases had earlier been determined.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Weidenhammer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Albright Coll.), 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 391 (May 14, 2020)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.07.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at