An order compelling a claimant to attend an IRE is interlocutory and was, therefore, properly quashed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.

The claimant sustained a work injury on December 11, 2013, and began receiving benefits pursuant to a Notice of Compensation Payable. In January of 2019, the employer filed a petition seeking to compel the claimant’s attendance at an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE), alleging that the claimant failed to attend an IRE that was scheduled to occur earlier that month. The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the petition, which the claimant appealed to the Appeal Board, arguing that the judge erred by ordering him to appear at an IRE because Act 111 was unconstitutional. The Board quashed the claimant’s appeal as interlocutory, and the claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The court, citing Groller v. WCAB (Alstrom Energy Sys.), 873 A.2d 787, 789 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), affirmed the Board. According to the court, because the order merely stated that the claimant was required to participate in the IRE, and neither affected the claimant’s benefits nor affected the employer’s obligation to pay benefits, the IRE order was a non-appealable, interlocutory order.

Sidebar: In a footnote, the Commonwealth Court said that the claimant presented two issues for its review: (1) whether the claimant’s failure to attend an IRE was reasonable because Act 111 violates the remedies clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution and deprived him of a vested right in paid benefits; and (2) whether Act 111 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s non- delegation rule. However, these issues were not considered by the court since the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order was interlocutory was dispositive.

 _{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}