The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I concur in the thoughtful majority opinion which allows the City of Pittsburgh to assert a subrogation lien for Heart and Lung Act 1 benefits paid to Casandra Oliver. I write separately to emphasize the majority’s correct handling of City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Williams), 810 A.2d 760 (Pa. Cmwlth.2002).
I authored the Court’s opinion in Williams. In a footnote I wrote, “Heart and Lung benefits are not subject to sub-rogation. Fulmer v. Pennsylvania State Police, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 60 , 647 A.2d 616 (1994).” Id. at 762, n. 5. The purpose of this reference was to explain the claimant’s argument, not to judge its continued validity. The reference was not necessary to resolution of Williams, hence the relegation to a footnote. Because this reference was intended as background rather than substance, I agree that it should have no bearing in the outcome of the current case.
. The act commonly referred to as the Heart and Lung Act is the Act of June 28, 1935, P.L. 477, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 637-638.