Opinion

Lamb v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

  • 720 A.2d 214
  • 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 841
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 9, 1998
Status
Published
Author
McCloskey
On the bench
Colins, Kelley, McCloskey, Mecloskey
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.5%

The opinion

McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. In the instant action, Mr. Lamb’s (Claimant) petition sought review of compensation benefits and asserted that there had been a miscalculation of his average weekly wage. Furthermore, the petition requested an adjustment of Claimant’s benefits to begin as of June 6, 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) made just such an award.

On appeal, this Court’s scope of review is limited to a determination of whether there was an error of law or an abuse of discretion was committed and whether the WCJ’s findings of fact are based upon substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. Berisford v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jessop Steel Co.), 142 Pa.Cmwlth. 83 , 596 A.2d 1237 (Pa.Cmwlth.1991); Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Volkswagen of America), 121 Pa.Cmwlth. *217 436 , 550 A.2d 1364 (1988). Thus, we must determine whether the WCJ’s decision to not award Claimant relief beyond that requested in his petition was an abuse of discretion. I assert that it was not.

Section 413 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) 1 provides that:

A workers’ compensation judge may, at any time, review and modify or set aside a notice of compensation payable and an original or supplemental agreement or upon petition filed by either party with the department, or in the course of proceedings under any petition pending before such workers’ compensation judge, if it be proved that such notice of compensation payable or agreement was in any material respect incorrect. (Emphasis supplied.)

Presently, the majority opinion changes the interpretation of Section 413 from “may review and modify or set aside” to “must review and modify or set aside.” Although it was within the WCJ’s discretion to look beyond the terms of the petition, I cannot say that the WCJ abused his discretion when he awarded Claimant precisely what he requested in his petition.

Accordingly, I would have affirmed the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 771.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.