finding that a claimant who had voluntarily retired was not entitled to benefits under the Act
How later courts described this case
- finding that a claimant who had voluntarily retired was not entitled to benefits under the Act
- claimant who offered no evidence that he was forced into compulsory retirement due by his disabling occupational disease, not entitled to benefits
- “Benefits under the [Workers’ Compensation] Act will only be permitted where the disabling, work related injury or disease, results in a loss of earning power”
- “focusing on the employer’s failure to show available work begs the question when the claimant clearly admits voluntary retirement from the workforce”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
At the very least, under the majority’s theory of the case, I would remand this matter to the referee for a determination as to whether or not the Claimant, after voluntarily retiring in 1981 from his career employment, ever intended to re-enter the workforce in any other capacity. I would not create an automatic presumption that voluntary retirement at a particular age means that one never intends to work again in any other endeavor.
On a more fundamental level, I believe the majority is wrong in their loose reading of our Workmen’s Compensation Act. Nowhere does it say that retirement makes one ineligible for benefits. How could it when there are today few age bars to gainful employment? The majority decision is also contrary to comparable federal law. Under the Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.S.C.A. § 801 , et seq., retirement before becoming totally disabled by pneumoconiosis does not deprive a miner of benefits. See, Palmer Coking Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs of U.S. Department of Labor, 720 F.2d 1054 (C.A.9 1983).
In light of the instant employer’s failure to show available work, I would affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court awarding benefits.