Recent Developments in Pennsylvania Kirk L. Wolgemuth Stevens & Lee 111 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 679 Reading, PA 19603-0679 (610) 478-2240                         1.  Average Weekly Wage Calculation.  In Coletzer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Standard Steel), 870 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the average weekly wage calculation (“AWW”) for a work injury must include the AWW for a prior injury that occurred in the prior year in order to calculate a fair AWW.  Thus, if employee had an AWW of $425 and received benefits for a six-week period, the AWW for those six weeks would be included the average weekly wage for a subsequent injury.                         2.  Average Weekly Wage Calculations During Periods of Layoff.  In Reifsnyder v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dana Corp.), 83 A.2d 537 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that even if an employee has periods of layoff in one or all of the four 13-week periods prior to the work injury, the average weekly wage calculation is still determined by dividing the complete earnings by 13 for each period.  This case is significant because prior to this case, the AWW would be calculated by using only those 13 week periods without any layoffs.                         3.  Self-employment and the Average Weekly Wage Calculations.  In Weissman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Podiatry Care Center, PC), 878 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), the Commonwealth Court held that income from self-employment did not constitute wages received from concurrent employment for the purposes of calculating the average weekly wage.  This case is critical because income earned from concurrent employment is included in the average weekly wage calculations.                         4.  Babich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (CPA Department of Corrections), ___________ A.2d _______, 2007 WL 1080121 (Pa. Cmwlth. April 12, 2007).  In this case, a prison nurse claimed that he suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of abnormal working conditions.  The claimant alleged that the hard working conditions that he underwent, including being verbally and physically threatened, witnessing horribly gruesome mutilations by inmates and other foul actions were abnormal.  In order to prevail, the claimant had to prove that he was exposed to abnormal working conditions and that his psychological problems were not a subjective reaction to normal working conditions. Here, the court held that the conditions were not abnormal because such conditions would be expected in a prison.