PA Court: Employer Need Not Pay Estimated Cost of Modifying Paraplegic’s Current Home Toward Purchase of New Home
Where a Pennsylvania construction worker, who had been rendered a paraplegic in a compensable workplace injury, obtained a bona fide estimate indicating it would cost more than $119,000 to to make necessary accommodations to the home where he lived, that amount did not become the claimant’s baseline entitlement, such that when he purchased a one-level house for $230,000, he could require the employer to pay $119,000 toward the purchase price, held the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania [Ralph Martin Constr. v. Castaneda-Escobar (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 2022 Pa. Comm. LEXIS 98 (Aug. 1, 2022)]. The Commonwealth Court stressed that, in cases such as these, the Board was required to weigh the remedial purposes of the Act against the need to avoid windfalls to the claimant. Here, that analysis was never undertaken.
Background
In 2010, Claimant was sustained serious injuries to his cervical spine in a construction accident that rendered him a paraplegic. At the time of his injury, Claimant resided in his brother’s townhouse, where the bedrooms and bathroom are located on the second floor. To accommodate Claimant, the living room was temporarily converted into his living quarters, where he was confined. In 2011, a design and construction firm estimated that it would cost $119,722.21 to modify the townhouse with the construction of a first-floor addition that included a new bedroom and bathroom. The firm estimated that the renovations would take 16 weeks to complete and require the occupants to vacate during construction. It observed that it might be more cost effective for Claimant to relocate to a single-floor residence with wheelchair accessibility.
The New Residence
In November 2018, Claimant bought a home for $230,000 in Leesport, Pennsylvania (Leesport Home), for which he incurred closing costs of $4,158. The Leesport Home accommodates Claimant’s needs with a first-floor master bedroom and bathroom; however, the shower in the master bathroom had to be modified to provide wheelchair accessibility. Employer reimbursed Claimant for the $5,905.04 Claimant spent to modify this bathroom.
Board Says Employer Must Pay $119K
After various proceedings at the WCL level, the Board ultimately concluded that Claimant’s purchase of the Leesport Home did not relieve Employer of its obligation to renovate the townhouse. Accordingly, the Board ordered Employer to pay the cost of that renovation to Claimant, i.e., $113,817.17, with a credit for the $5,905.04 it had already paid for the bathroom renovation in the Leesport Home.
$6 Million in Third-Party Settlements
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court noted that Claimant did not testify to explain his decision to purchase a home, which, apparently, was facilitated by his third-party settlements that totaled at least $6 million. Notably, Claimant abandoned his original claim that Employer should pay the entire cost of his new home and, instead, sought an award of $119,722.21, i.e., the cost to modify the townhouse.
The Court explained that Claimant’s wheelchair was assuredly an orthopedic appliance, and the Court’s precedent had established that home modifications to make the wheelchair useful to Claimant were Employer’s responsibility. The Court added, however, that there was no precedent under the Act that had established that an employer could be held liable to purchase an entire house for a claimant or to pay for modifications that were never undertaken.
Weighing of Important Factors Had Never Happened
Claimant’s consultants determined that $119,722.21 was required to remodel the townhouse to make it accessible for Claimant, but that amount did not become Claimant’s baseline entitlement, as suggested by the Board. Observing that Claimant purchased a home that was generally accessible to Claimant, with the exception of the bathroom, and that Employer paid for that modification, the Court said this fulfilled Employer’s obligation under Section 306(f.1)(1)(ii) of the Act. . If Claimant had not been willing, or not been able, to move from the townhouse, some modification would have been required. The Court stressed that the extent of that modification would have required a weighing of the remedial purposes of the Act against the need to avoid windfalls to Claimant. This analysis was never undertaken. The Court concluded:
We hold that Section 306(f.1)(1)(ii) of the Act did not authorize the Board to order Employer to pay Claimant $113,817.17 for home modifications never done or to contribute to the purchase of a new home. We affirm the Board’s holding that Employer was not liable for Claimant’s closing costs for the Leesport Home, which the Board found untethered to the obligation in Section 306(f.1)(1)(ii) of the Act to provide an injured claimant with orthopedic appliances.