Commonwealth Court Affirms Notice Was Timely in Electrocution and Tremor Injury Claim

The Commonwealth Court has affirmed that a claimant who notifies their employer of a work injury in plain language and in a timely manner satisfies the notice requirements of Sections 311 and 312 of the Act even if a diagnosis is not immediately reported.

In this case, the claimant worked for the employer for 17 years as a machine operator and firefighter. He filed a Claim Petition, alleging he was electrocuted in 2018 while vacuuming at work and that the incident caused severe tremors. The claimant had previously been electrocuted at work, in 2013, after which he experienced tremors. He continued working through the 2018 electrocution, which he claimed worsened his tremors.

The claimant’s expert testified that his movements from the tremors were involuntary. However, the employer’s expert testified the claimant’s movements were voluntary. Also, the employer’s nurse testified the claimant presented to her the day of injury, sat with her for 30 minutes and then continued working.

The workers’ compensation judge granted the Claim Petition, which the employer appealed to the Appeal Board. Other than remanding the case to the workers’ compensation judge to determine the employer’s entitlement to a credit, the Board affirmed.

The employer then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, primarily arguing the claimant failed to establish that he gave timely notice of his work injury. The court, however, rejected this argument and dismissed the appeal. The court noted Sections 311 and 312 of the Act concerned the timing and content of notice. Section 311 says that an employee must give notice of work injury within 120 days of its occurrence. Where the injury and its connection to employment is not known, the notice period does not begin to run until the employee knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the existence of the injury and its possible relationship to his employment. Section 312 requires that notice inform the employer an injury occurred, described in ordinary language, in the course of employment, on or about a specified time, at or near a place specified. An exact diagnosis of a work injury need not be provided, instead, a reasonably precise description is sufficient. The court additionally noted a claimant is not required to give notice in a single communication. The context of communications between a claimant and an employer is relevant.

The court found, in this case, that the claimant reported his electrocution to the employer’s nurse on the date it occurred. At that point, the employer had actual knowledge of the injury and the circumstances giving rise to it. At the time notification was given, the claimant was not aware of the full extent of the injuries he would eventually suffer. Once he learned that his ongoing symptoms could be related, he reported this to the employer’s nurse. Considering the context of the communications from the claimant, the court held the employer was provided with information concerning the time and place of injury, that it occurred at work, and that a reasonable description of the injury was given.