Pa. Supreme Court’s Jackiw Decision Ends Unjust Specific-Loss Injury Benefit Calculations for Injured Workers

Total disability benefits vs. Specific-loss benefits

The two most common categories of workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania are temporary total disability benefits and specific-loss benefits. Temporary total disability benefits replace lost wages for workers whose work injuries prevent them from working. Section 306(a) of the WCA contains the formula for calculating total disability benefits, which are typically calculated as two-thirds of the worker’s average weekly wage (“AWW”), though there is a statutory floor and ceiling.

Specific-loss benefits, governed by Section 306(c), apply when a worker loses a specific body part or the permanent use of a body part. When eligible for specific-loss benefits, the amount of benefits a worker can receive is based on a fixed schedule of compensation in the WCA, though compensation under 306(c) “shall not be more than the maximum compensation payable nor less than fifty per centum of the maximum compensation payable per week for total disability as provided in [Section 306(a)], but in no event more than the Statewide [AWW].” Section 306(c)’s formula often results in higher compensation for an injured worker than what they would receive through Section 306(a)’s formula.

A food service worker loses an arm—what level of compensation is she entitled to?

Jackiw is a relatively straightforward case in which Jennifer Jackiw lost an arm through an injury at work and sought workers’ compensation benefits. There was no dispute that Jackiw was entitled to those benefits. The sole issue in the case was whether the benefits for her injury would be calculated under Section 306(a) or Section 306(c) of the WCA.

On June 4, 2020, Jackiw suffered a workplace crush injury to her right lower arm, which was eventually amputated. Her employer, Soft Pretzel Franchise, issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP). The NTCP provided compensation of $199.30 per week, based on an AWW of $221.44.

The parties eventually agreed to a corrected benefit of $289.85 per week and agreed that Jackiw was entitled to 370 weeks of compensation and a healing period of 20 weeks under Section 306(c)(2) of the WCA. They could not, however, agree on which statutory formula—the one in Section 306(a) or the one in Section 306(c)(25)—was the correct one to use in her case. Jackiw’s counsel argued for the use of the latter’s formula; Soft Pretzel’s counsel argued for the former’s formula.

The presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) held that Jackiw’s benefits should be calculated under Section 306(a)’s formula based on the Pa. Commonwealth Court’s 1980 decision in Walton v. Cooper Hosiery Co., 409 A.2d 518. The Walton court interpreted Section 306(c) to be consistent with 306(a), requiring the total disability formula to apply to specific-loss injuries.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (“WCAB”) affirmed the decision. A divided en banc Commonwealth Court affirmed the WCAB’s decision.

The Pa. Supreme Court clarifies specific-loss injury benefits

The Pa. Supreme Court granted Jackiw’s petition for review, focusing on whether the Commonwealth Court erred in applying 306(a) rather than 306(c) when determining her benefit rate. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the use of Section 306(a) to calculate Jackiw’s benefit was improper in that it ignored the plain language of the statute.

In reversing the Commonwealth Court’s decision and ruling that the specific-loss formula in Section 360(c) should be used to calculate Jackiw’s benefits, the Pa. Supreme Court noted that the plain language of the statute clearly distinguishes between total disability and specific-loss benefits by providing each with its own formula for calculation. The court explained that specific-loss benefits are distinct from temporary total disability benefits and are intended to compensate workers for the permanent nature of their injuries. The calculation and the results reached by using the formula in Section 306(c), said the court, should reflect that difference.

Regarding the portion of Section 306(c) that references total disability benefits, the court explained that it does not mean that the entire Section 306(a) formula applies. Instead, according to the court, the reference to 306(a) was only concerning the maximum compensation cap.

As for the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Walton and other prior case law, the court held that these decisions incorrectly applied the total disability formula to specific-loss injuries, resulting in a misinterpretation of the law. The court stated that using the specific-loss formula ensures that a claimant receives the intended benefits under the WCA, thereby correcting the prior approach that created inconsistencies and incorrectly provided significantly reduced benefits for specific-loss claimants.

Ultimately, the court, compelled to give meaning to all the language in the WCA, held that Jackiw was entitled to a higher payment amount under the specific-loss formula.

Christopher D. Armstrong is an attorney at Pond Lehocky Giordano Inc., the largest workers’ compensation and disability law firm in Pennsylvania, and one of the largest in the U.S. He can be reached at carmstrong@pondlehocky.com.

Reprinted with permission from the July 17, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.

The Jackiw decision has ramifications for all participants in Pa.’s workers’ compensation system

With Jackiw, the Pa. Supreme Court corrected a long-standing and widespread misapplication of the WCA by clarifying the method of calculation to be used for total temporary disability cases versus specific-loss injuries, emphasizing that the WCA provides specific-loss injuries with their own set of calculation rules.

The court’s holding will, in many cases, result in a weekly benefit for a specific-loss injury that exceeds the total disability calculation provided by Section 306(a). For Jackiw, under the prior calculation process relying on Section 306(a)’s formula, she would have received a weekly benefit of $289.85. Under the specific-loss calculation of Section 306(c), she should receive $540.50.

With this change in calculating workers’ compensation benefits following the specific loss of a body part, workers’ compensation insurers and employers may be required to pay more benefits in future cases like Jackiw’s, which could lead insurers to raise premiums to cover their increased exposure. Claimants’ counsel, on the other hand, should understand that their clients could be eligible for higher amounts of benefits than they would have assumed.

Jackiw is a landmark decision with ramifications for injured workers, workers’ compensation insurers, employers, and their counsel. Though it was a decision that relied on straightforward statutory interpretation, its impact will be felt for years to come, including by injured workers who will finally receive their fair share of workers’ compensation benefits for their specific-loss injuries.