This week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to convene in Harrisburg for its final oral argument session of the year, examining a range of significant legal matters. The justices will consider twelve cases on Tuesday and Wednesday, addressing topics from mental health care provider immunity to workers’ compensation coverage for CBD oil. Here’s a closer look at what’s on the docket.
Immunity for Mental Health Providers Under Scrutiny
One of the most pressing cases involves the potential liability of an Allentown hospital in the death of a patient, Kenneth Wunderly, who allegedly succumbed to bed sores during his dementia treatment. The case, Wunderly v. Saint Luke’s Hospital of Bethlehem, raises questions about the scope of immunity granted to mental health care providers under the Mental Health Procedures Act (MDPA).
The hospital argues that it is shielded from liability due to the MDPA, which protects healthcare providers from claims related to care administered under the act. However, the plaintiff contends that the lower courts misinterpreted the law, asserting that the pressure injuries were not a direct result of mental health treatment and thus should not fall under the MDPA’s immunity provisions.
The Superior Court had sided with the hospital, stating that preventing pressure wounds was part of the mental health care provided. The plaintiff is now appealing this decision to the Supreme Court, represented by Swartz Culleton, while St. Luke’s is defended by Kilcoyne & Nesbitt and Lamb McErlane.
Workers’ Compensation Benefits at the Forefront
Another case on the Supreme Court’s agenda is Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, which examines whether specific loss benefits are available to the estates of workers who died from work-related injuries. The case stems from an explosion at a fireworks factory that severely injured Kristina Steets, who later died from respiratory issues linked to her work conditions.
Initially, the workers’ compensation judge ruled that Steets was entitled to specific loss benefits after her temporary disability benefits ended. However, after her death, the estate sought these benefits, only to be denied by the judge, who stated that such benefits could only be granted if the claimant died from causes unrelated to their work injuries.
While the Commonwealth Court upheld this decision, dissenting Judge Ellen Ceisler argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not restrict payment based on the cause of death. The estate of Steets is represented by the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel and Strubinger Law, while Celebration Fireworks is defended by Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby.
CBD Oil and Workers’ Compensation: A Pivotal Case
On Wednesday, the court will address Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides and Rassias, a case that could reshape the landscape of workers’ compensation benefits. The central issue revolves around whether an employer violated the Workers’ Compensation Act by refusing to reimburse an employee for CBD oil used to treat a workplace injury.
Claimant Mark Schmidt argues that CBD oil should be classified as a “medicine” or “supply” under the Workers’ Compensation Act, entitling him to reimbursement. However, his employer contends that CBD does not meet the criteria for reimbursement as it is not an FDA-approved substance.
The Commonwealth Court had previously sided with Schmidt, determining that CBD qualifies as both a medicine and a supply. Schmidt is representing himself in this matter, while his employer is represented by John Kennedy of Elias Mickle Kennedy.
What’s Next for Pennsylvania’s Legal Landscape?
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears these crucial cases, the outcomes could have far-reaching implications for mental health care liability, workers’ compensation benefits, and the acceptance of alternative treatments like CBD oil in the workplace. Legal experts and advocates alike will be watching closely as the justices deliberate on these important issues.