# Mino v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · February 26, 2010 · 990 A.2d 832

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638253

## Case

- **Full name:** Julio Paz Y MINO, Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CRIME PREVENTION ASSOCIATION), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 26, 2010
- **Citations:** 990 A.2d 832; 2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 86; 2010 WL 668956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Leadbetter, McGinley, Pellegrini, Jubelirer, Simpson, Leavitt, Butler
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638253

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that although WCJ did not formally indicate that she was amending the description contained in the NCP, by crediting the claimant’s expert and denying the employer’s termination petition, the WCJ implicitly expanded the description of the injury to include an aggravati…
- holding an employer that has paid an injured worker an exces *846 sive amount of money under the mistaken belief that the sum paid was necessary for the discharge of a duty is entitled to an offset to preclude the claimant’s unjust enrichment
- holding an employer that has paid an injured worker an excessive amount of money under the mistaken belief that the sum paid was necessary for the discharge of a duty is entitled to an offset to preclude the claimant's unjust enrichment

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
While I join the majority opinion in finding that the remand is necessary, I write separately to note that the cases relied on by the majority —Kiebler v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Specialty Tire of America), 738 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999); Fahringer, McCarty & Grey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Green), 529 A.2d 56 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987); and a decision of our Supreme Court —Lucey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vy-Cal Plastics), 557 Pa. 272 , 732 A.2d 1201 (1999)—only allow payments from future compensation. If Claimant’s benefits are again terminated, I would hold that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to enter a general judgment and order payment from a claimant directly and, as the term suggests, can only order an offset from future benefits. I would also hold that an offset can only be collected from benefits awarded in the proceeding that is before the WCJ, and the amount of offset is not “banked” to be offset from any compensation, if any, awarded in future proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638253. Public record. Not legal advice.