The Difference Between ''compensated Injury'' and ''injury Compensable''

In Richards v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 564 Pa. 375, 768 A.2d 852 (2001), our Supreme Court examined the language of Section 204(b) of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) and drew a distinction between a compensated injury and an injury compensable. The Court explained that a compensable injury may have occurred, although it was not compensated. Richards; see City of McKeesport v. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Miletti), 560 Pa. 413, 746 A.2d 87 (2000). a claimant's receipt of compensation does not necessarily establish an entitlement to that compensation. Richards. The Court explained: A compensable injury has acquired a particularized meaning through case law, which requires a claimant to demonstrate a causal relationship between the injury and employment to establish compensability. See, e.g., Fotta v. WCAB (U.S.Steel), 534 Pa. 191, 194, 626 A.2d 1144, 1146 (1993). Even with the necessary causal relationship, an injury is not compensable unless it results in some disability, i.e., a loss of earning power. See generally Vista Int'l Hotel v. WCAB (Daniels), 560 Pa. 12, 23-24, 742 A.2d 649, 655-56 (2000); Inglis House v. WCAB (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 142, 634 A.2d 592, 596 (1993). Furthermore, a work-related injury may not be compensable because it is barred by a procedural provision of the WCA. See 77 P.S. 602 (requiring the filing of a claim petition within three years of the date of injury); see also 77 P.S. 631 (mandating the provision of notice to the employer within 120 days of the injury). Id. at 384 n.9, 768 A.2d at 857 n.9. Thus, a work-related injury need not be compensated under the WCA for benefit eligibility purposes under the Law, but need merely be compensable. Id.; Finfinger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 854 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (This Court confirmed that an injury need necessarily not be compensated in order to be compensable).