Do Specific Loss Benefits Die with the Claimant?
In a landmark decision that significantly expands the rights of injured workers’ estates, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled longstanding precedent regarding the survivability of specific loss benefits. The Court held that specific loss benefits are payable to a claimant’s estate if the worker dies from the work injury while the claim is pending appeal, reversing, in part, precedent that limited such payments to deaths from non-work-related causes.
In Steets v. Celebration Fireworks (WCAB), claimant, Kristina Steets, sustained a catastrophic work injury involving a fireworks explosion that resulted in the permanent loss of use of both her arms. The employer accepted her injury and paid temporary disability but contested specific loss benefits. The WCJ ultimately awarded Claimant specific loss benefits. Employer appealed, and while the appeal was pending, Ms. Steets died from complications related to her work injury.
Relying on the Commonwealth Court’s 2004 precedent in Estate of Harris, which held that specific loss benefits only survive and are payable to an estate if the claimant’s death is from non-work-related causes, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board and the Commonwealth Court initially denied the estate's claim for the remaining specific loss benefits.
The Supreme Court granted review, and ultimately reversed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that specific loss benefits are to be paid to the estate if the claimant dies before the final adjudication of their claim, regardless of the cause of death.
The Court differentiated Ms. Steets’ situation from situations governed by Section 306(g) of the Act, which is applicable when a claimant receiving specific loss benefits dies from non-work-related causes. Previously, Section 306(g) was construed to mean that if a claimant’s death was work-related, then specific loss benefits died with the claimant, leaving only Fatal Claim benefits for dependents. The Court rejected this interpretation, as set forth in Estate of Harris, that Section 306(g) is the exclusive means for specific loss benefits to survive a worker's death.
Rather, the Supreme Court relied upon Section 410 of the Act, which states that “in case any claimant shall die before the final adjudication of his claim, the amount of compensation due... shall be paid... if there be no dependents, then to the estate of the decedent.” Because Ms. Steets’ specific loss award was on appeal when she died, there was no “final adjudication” and Section 410 applied.
The Court held that Section 410 contains no language limiting its application based on the cause of death but rather provides a distinct remedy for claims cut short by death during litigation.
Overall, the decision in Steets expands liability for specific loss claims. Previously, if a severely injured worker with no dependents died from their injury while pursuing a claim for benefits, the employer essentially owed nothing beyond funeral costs. Now, the estate can collect the full value of the specific loss award, as the specific loss benefits do not simply “die with the claimant.”
Additionally, following Steets, claims involving elderly workers or those with significant co-morbidities may now carry higher reserves, as mortality risk no longer extinguishes potential payouts for specific loss injuries.
Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc. (Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.), 335 A.3d 1076 (Pa. 2025).
For questions, please contact Somers Walsh, Associate in Post & Schell's Workers' Compensation Department at 717-391-4404 or swalsh@postschell.com, or the Post & Schell attorney with whom you normally consult.
About the Author
Somers Walsh is an Associate in the firm’s Workers’ Compensation Department in its Lancaster, PA office. She focuses her practice on defending self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation litigation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.