# Medved v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 28, 2001 · 788 A.2d 447

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712149

## Case

- **Full name:** Viola MEDVED, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ALBERT GALLATIN SERVICES), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 28, 2001
- **Citations:** 788 A.2d 447; 2001 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 865
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Judge
- **Judges:** Pellegrini, Leadbetter, Jiuliante
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9712149

## Opinion text

PELLEGRINI Judge,
Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority’s holding that a position offered as a telephone customer surveyor performing work from home is suitable alternative employment under the standards set forth in Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240 , 532 A.2d 374 (1987). 1 I recognize that a significant number of individuals work from their homes, but just because they choose to do so does not make at-home work suitable alternative employment. A significant number of individuals choose to commute great distances and work inordinate numbers of hours, but if proffered, we would not find this type of employment situation to be a suitable alternative. Unless a person had chosen to work at home prior to an injury, I would hold that any position that requires a claimant’s residence to be commandeered and turned from a home into an employer’s rent-free field office, thereby invading the claimant’s privacy, intruding, without permission, into other household members’ daily home lives and disrupting family life, can never be considered suitable alternative employment.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
. Pursuant to Kachinski , the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the claimant's condition has changed and that the claimant has been referred to a then-available job that he or she is capable of performing. The burden of proof then shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that he or she responded to the job offer in good faith. If the claimant does not exercise good faith, then his or her benefits can be modified. Id. at 252 , 532 A.2d at 379 .
Under the second prong of Kachinski , the offered job is "actually available” only if it can be performed by the claimant, taking into consideration his or her physical limitations and restrictions, age, intellectual capacity, education, previous work experience and other relevant considerations. Id. at 251 , 532 A.2d at 379 . "Other relevant considerations have included non-medical factors such as the claimant’s place of residence, the distance and duration of the claimant's commute, and the length of the workday.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712149. Public record. Not legal advice.