# Panea v. Isdaner > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 10, 2001 · 2001 Pa. Super. 108 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713872 ## Case - **Full name:** Doina PANEA and John Panea, Husband and Wife, Appellants (At 3677), v. Neil ISDANER, M.D., Neil Isdaner, M.D., P.C., and Jeanes Hospital, Appellees; Shirley L. Bell and Thomas P. Bell, Her Husband, Appellees, v. Joseph A. Slezak, M.D., Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. Ltd., L. Alan Egleston, M.D. and Frick Community Health Center. Appeal of Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. and Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. Ltd. (At 2174); Robert Baker, Appellant (At 642), v. Donald Myers, M.D., Sanford Davne, M.D., and Acromed Corporation, Appellees - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** April 10, 2001 - **Citations:** 2001 Pa. Super. 108; 773 A.2d 782; 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 429 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McEWEN - **Judges:** McEwen, Sole, Hudock, Eakin, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Melvin, Todd, Eda, Pgh, Phl - **Cited by:** 22 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/9713872 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - observing, in response to the Superior Court majority's assertion that Dr. Slezak's opposition to payment was merely his assertion of a statutory right to extinguish his obligation on the claim, that such entitlement, where it may exist, is expressly vested in PPCIGA and not w… - rejecting resort to commonlaw contract principles, and noting contrarily that “to the extent there was insurance coverage, the right to payment constitutes nothing-more than a claim against a tortfeasor who was insured by that insurer” (emphasis added) - noting that the loss occasioned by offsetting the insolvency fund's liability falls not to the claimant, but to the solvent insurers who paid the claimant's claims under other forms of insurance - concluding PPCIGA entitled to set-off for duplicative medical benefits paid by workers’ compensation carrier for claimant’s injury ## Opinion text McEWEN, President Judge, concurring and dissenting. ¶ 1 I hasten to join in the results achieved by the perceptive analysis presented in the dissenting opinions in Panea and Bell, since I agree that these cases must be resolved through application of settled principles of contract law. At the same time, I join in the able and discerning majority opinion of Judge Orie Melvin in Baker insofar as (1) it calls for application of the statutory set-off accorded PIGA, (2) it finds that judgment n.o.v. was improperly entered in favor of Dr. Davne and, (3) it concludes that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of any set-off to which PIGA is entitled. However, since the set-off to which PIGA is entitled is limited to those sums received from insurance proceeds which cover the same type of loss as was later claimed against Dr. Myers, McCarthy v. Bainbridge, 739 A.2d 200, 203 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal granted, 563 Pa. 647 , 758 A.2d 1200 (2000) I would remand Baker to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of the amount of the set-off to which PIGA is entitled. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713872. Public record. Not legal advice.