Did Flooding Justify Employer’s Late Response to Workers’ Comp Claim?

What Do You Think?

Employers in Pennsylvania must file an answer to a workers’ compensation claim within 20 days of receiving it. But what happens when weather or some other event outside of the employer’s control prevents it from receiving or obtaining mail during that period. 

In a recent case addressing that question, an employee for a tire distributor injured his hip and back and filed a claim on April 22, 2021. He listed his employer’s Eynon address. Around that time, the Eynon facility was closed due to flooding. The manager said that they didn’t receive the claim there within the 20-day period because they could not access the facility. The employer filed an answer denying the claim on May 19, 2021.

The claimant argued that because the employer didn’t answer within 20 days, the board was required to automatically accept his allegations in the claim as true. The board denied that request, and the claimant appealed the denial.

An employer must file an answer to a workers' compensation claim within 20 days of being served with the claim. Where an employer fails to do so in a timely manner, every factual allegation in the claim petition is deemed admitted. The employer is essentially barred from defending itself against the claim.

Was the court required to deem the employee’s allegations true?

A. No. The answer was late, but the employer had a solid excuse.

B. Yes. Even if there was flooding, there is no exception to the 20-day rule.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Lucke v. Kost Tires Distributors, Inc., No. 698 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 10/09/25), which found that the employer articulated a good faith reason for not answering within 20 days.

Looking for how you state handles good faith defenses? Look to Simply Research.

It was true that the employer’s answer was late, the court stated. However, there is an exception to the rule that the allegations in a claim are deemed admitted when the answer is untimely. If the employer can show it had a good reason (“good cause”) for filing a late response, it can still mount a defense to the claim. To establish it had good cause, the employer must present evidence of an adequate excuse for its late answer.

Here, the claimant overlooked the good cause exception. “Here, Employer presented testimony it did not receive the mailed Claim Petition because its Eynon location was closed at the time due to flooding," the court wrote. Because the employer had an adequate excuse for not meeting the deadline, it fell within the exception.

The court affirmed the board’s order.

Share This Article: