Lorino v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board
In Lorino v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an important question for injured workers: whether a claimant who prevails in a contested workers’ compensation case may still recover attorney fees even when the employer had a reasonable basis to contest the claim. The Court held that the Commonwealth Court’s interpretation of Section 440 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act was contrary to the statute’s express language and it reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Attorneys George J. Badey III and Susan J. Herczeg of Badey, Sloan & DiGenova, P.C. represented appellant Vincent Lorino before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The decision became an important ruling for workers’ compensation claimants because it clarified that a reasonable contest by an employer does not automatically preclude an award of attorney fees.
Case Background
Vincent Lorino worked as an equipment operator for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation when he slipped on the running board of a work truck and injured his lower back and left hip. The employer accepted liability for medical-only benefits, but later sought to terminate treatment after an independent medical examination concluded that Lorino had fully recovered and that his continuing pain was related to pre-existing degenerative disc disease.
Lorino opposed the termination petition and requested continued medical benefits and attorney fees under Section 440 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Because he was receiving only medical benefits, he could not rely on a traditional contingent-fee arrangement and instead retained counsel under an hourly-rate agreement.
The Legal Issue Before the Court
The dispute centered on Section 440 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which addresses attorney fees and litigation costs in contested workers’ compensation matters. Lower tribunals had treated a reasonable contest by the employer as a bar to attorney fees, but Lorino argued that the statute did not require that result.
The issue mattered because injured workers may need counsel to protect medical benefits even when no wage-loss benefits are being paid. Without a possible fee award, claimants in medical-only disputes may face a practical barrier to obtaining legal representation when an employer seeks to stop treatment.
The Supreme Court’s Holding
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Section 440 does not automatically preclude an attorney fee award merely because the employer had a reasonable basis for its contest. The Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court’s interpretation conflicted with the statute’s express language, reversed in part, and remanded the case.
In practical terms, the decision clarified that an attorney’s fees are mandatory when a contested case is resolved in the claimant’s favor, but a workers’ compensation judge has discretion to exclude those fees when the employer establishes a reasonable basis for the contest. That distinction matters because it leaves discretion with the workers’ compensation judge rather than creating an automatic safe harbor for employers and insurers.
Why This Decision Matters
The Lorino decision strengthened access to representation for injured workers in contested workers’ compensation proceedings. By rejecting an automatic exclusion of fees whenever an employer presents a reasonable contest, the Court recognized the practical reality that claimants may need counsel to preserve benefits, including medical treatment, even when wage-loss payments are not at issue.
The ruling also restored the statutory balance between discouraging unreasonable contests and preserving judicial discretion in reasonable-contest cases. For workers, employers, insurers, and attorneys, Lorino remains a significant Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on how Section 440 should be applied in workers’ compensation litigation.
A Resource for Injured Workers and Referring Attorneys
Badey, Sloan & DiGenova, P.C. has long represented injured workers in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matters, including appeals involving important statutory protections. Lorino is a reminder that procedural and fee-shifting rules can directly affect whether injured workers can defend their benefits when treatment or compensation is challenged.