How SKRR Helped Shape Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Workers’ Compensation Decisions
From March 2025 through June 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued several major workers’ compensation decisions affecting injured workers, employers, insurance companies, medical providers, and anyone involved in a Pennsylvania work injury claim.
Attorney Mark R. Schmidt and Schmidt, Kirifides, Rassias & Rio were directly connected to that recent appellate landscape through one Pennsylvania Supreme Court victory, two amicus curiae briefs filed in support of injured-worker positions, and a later Supreme Court decision that relied on the reasoning from Mark’s case.
These decisions addressed some of the most important issues in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation law, including medical benefits, reimbursement for treatment-plan items, co-worker immunity, notice of injury, and pharmacy payment disputes.
For injured workers, these rulings matter because they can affect what medical treatment is paid for, when a separate personal injury claim may be permitted, how notice requirements apply, and whether prescriptions or treatment can be delayed or denied.
Together, these cases show why experience in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation litigation and appellate law can matter long before a case reaches the highest court in the Commonwealth.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Recent Workers’ Compensation Decisions at a Glance
Mark R. Schmidt and Schmidt, Kirifides, Rassias & Rio were connected to a series of Pennsylvania Supreme Court workers’ compensation decisions involving medical benefits, civil claims after workplace injuries, notice requirements, and pharmacy reimbursement disputes.
Mark R. Schmidt won a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision expanding protection for injured workers seeking reimbursement for doctor-prescribed treatment-plan items.
Mark authored an amicus curiae brief supporting the injured party’s position in a case involving when a co-worker may be sued separately after a work injury.
Mark authored an amicus curiae brief in a case addressing whether a sole proprietor must give notice of a work injury to the insurer or only to the employer.
The Court cited the Schmidt decision in a new workers’ compensation pharmacy reimbursement case decided in June 2026.
Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias: Medical Benefits and “Medicines and Supplies”
Attorney Mark R. Schmidt suffered a work-related back injury in 2017. He was both the injured worker and his own lawyer in a dispute that reached the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was decided in March 2025.
The issue involved the insurance company’s responsibility to pay for “medicines and supplies” under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.
Mark’s doctor recommended a trial of CBD oil to avoid increasing the dose of opioid pain medication and to avoid the risk and recovery involved with surgery. The insurance company refused to reimburse the cost, arguing that CBD oil was not approved by the FDA and was not a pharmaceutical drug.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagreed.
Citing the humanitarian purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the goal of improving an injured worker’s condition and ability to return to work or continue working, the Court held that an item included in a physician’s treatment plan for a work-related injury may fall within the meaning of “medicines and supplies.”
The Court also held that the Act does not require FDA approval or a formal prescription for an item to qualify, and that an injured worker is not a treatment provider. Because an injured worker is not a provider, the worker may seek reimbursement for the full cost incurred rather than being treated under the rules that apply to medical providers.
Read more about Mark Schmidt’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court workers’ comp medical benefits victory.
Brown v. Gaydos: Co-Worker Immunity and Separate Personal Injury Claims
Attorney Schmidt next participated in two Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases as the author of amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice Amicus Curiae Committee, supporting the arguments presented by the injured party’s counsel.
In Brown v. Gaydos, the issue involved the immunity of employers and co-workers from personal injury claims after a work injury.
As a general rule, when an injured worker is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, the employer and co-workers usually cannot be sued separately for the same workplace injury. Workers’ compensation is often described as the injured worker’s exclusive remedy.
But Brown involved a more complicated situation. Gaydos was both Brown’s employer and a co-worker, but he also owned a separate business from the job where Brown was employed. Brown’s lawsuit alleged that negligent conduct connected to that separate business caused his injury.
Schmidt argued, and the Court agreed, that if a co-worker’s negligent act occurred when that person was not in the course of employment at the same job as the injured worker, then they are not co-workers at that time for purposes of immunity.
That decision may open the door for personal injury claims in certain cases previously thought to be barred by workers’ compensation immunity.
Read the decision in Brown v. Gaydos.
Erie Insurance v. Heater: Notice of Injury in a Workers’ Compensation Claim
Schmidt also authored the amicus curiae brief in Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Co. v. Heater.
The issue involved the deadline for an injured worker to give notice of a work-related injury. In Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases, late notice can limit benefits or, in some cases, prevent an injured worker from receiving benefits.
In Heater, the injured worker was a sole proprietor. He was both the owner and the sole employee of his business. After his injury, he advised his insurance broker, but the insurance company argued that notice had not properly been given to the insurer.
Erie argued that when a business is a single-person entity, notice must be given to the insurance company rather than only to the employer, because the injured worker and the employer were effectively the same person.
Schmidt argued, and the Court agreed, that the Workers’ Compensation Act provides separate definitions of “employer” and “insurer,” and that the Act requires notice to the employer. The Court held that a sole proprietor’s own direct knowledge of the work incident can satisfy the notice requirement to the employer, absent fraud or an effort to prevent the insurance company from investigating the claim.
That ruling matters because it prevents insurers from adding notice requirements that do not appear in the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Read the decision in Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Co. v. Heater.
700 Pharmacy: The Continuing Impact of Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias
Although Mark was not directly involved in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s June 16, 2026 decision in 700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office, the Court cited his own personal case (Schmidt v. Schmidt Kirifides & Rassias) 9 times.
That matters.
The issue in 700 Pharmacy involved whether a treatment provider could refer medication prescriptions to a pharmacy owned by that same provider. The Court’s conclusion that self-referrals for prescription medications are permitted relied in part on the same broader understanding of the Workers’ Compensation Act discussed in Schmidt: Pennsylvania workers’ compensation law exists to benefit injured workers and should be interpreted in a way that protects access to medical treatment.
This decision benefits injured workers because it may help doctors ensure necessary medications are provided without unnecessary delay. There is no pre-approval process for treatment of work injuries. Traditional pharmacies are often discouraged from filling prescriptions because of uncertainty over whether the bill will be paid or whether the insurer will deny or challenge the prescription after it has already been filled.
The Court’s reliance on Schmidt shows the continuing importance of Mark Schmidt’s 2025 Supreme Court victory in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation medical treatment disputes.
Read the decision in 700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office.
Why These Decisions Matter for Injured Workers
These Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions are not abstract legal technicalities. They affect real injured workers dealing with medical treatment, wage loss benefits, denied claims, delayed prescriptions, insurance company objections, and uncertainty about their future.
Together, these rulings address several important questions:
- Can an injured worker be reimbursed for doctor-prescribed treatment-plan items?
- When can a separate personal injury lawsuit move forward after a workplace injury?
- What notice does the Workers’ Compensation Act actually require?
- Can medical providers help ensure prescriptions are filled without improper payment denials?
- How should Pennsylvania courts interpret the Workers’ Compensation Act when injured workers need medical care?
The answers to those questions can affect whether an injured worker receives treatment, whether bills are paid, whether benefits are protected, and whether a case is positioned correctly from the start.
Why Appellate Experience Matters in Workers’ Compensation Cases
These cases show why workers’ compensation experience matters beyond the first hearing.
The interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation Act can affect whether an injured worker receives medical treatment, wage loss benefits, reimbursement, or the ability to pursue a separate civil claim. A workers’ compensation lawyer needs to understand not only how to present evidence, but also how to preserve legal issues and fight insurance company arguments that could affect the case for years.
At Schmidt, Kirifides, Rassias & Rio, every workers’ compensation partner is certified as a specialist under Pennsylvania law. Our attorneys have fought for injured workers for more than 30 years, bring more than 100 years of combined workers’ compensation experience, and have handled more than 100 appellate matters, including cases before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
That appellate background matters. It helps our firm identify the legal issues that can change a case, protect the record, and challenge insurance company positions that threaten an injured worker’s benefits.
Injured at Work in Pennsylvania?
If your workers’ compensation claim was denied, your checks stopped, your treatment is being delayed, or the insurance company is refusing to pay for medical care connected to your work injury, our office can help.
Schmidt, Kirifides, Rassias & Rio represents injured workers throughout Delaware County, Philadelphia, and across Pennsylvania. Learn more about our Pennsylvania workers’ compensation lawyers, review your rights under Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits, or contact us online for a free consultation.
You can also call 610-892-9300 to speak with our office.