# Kramer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 2005 · 584 Pa. 309

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746456

## Case

- **Full name:** Denise KRAMER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RITE AID CORPORATION), Appellant/Cross-Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 584 Pa. 309; 883 A.2d 518
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb, Former
- **Cited by:** 65 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/9746456

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Act’s offset provision constitutional under rational basis test; “[r]easonable workers' compensation cost containment for employers, and the concomitant competitive benefit such cost containment offers for Pennsylvania businesses, unquestionably is a legitimate state c…
- recognizing court's authority to decide issue rather than remand
- noting that Act 57 significantly concerned itself with the containment of costs borne by employers in our workers’ compensation scheme

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, except in two respects. First, I agree with Claimant that it is not wholly apt to characterize the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits and a severance, negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement, as a double benefit or recovery, particularly in light of the legislative compromise between loss-spreading and insulation of employers from tort liability on which the workers’ compensation system is premised. See Lewis v. School Dist. of Phila., 517 Pa. 461, 471-72 , 538 A.2d 862, 867 (1988). Instead, I view Section 204(a) as coordinating an employer’s existing contractual obligations with its liability arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act, while ensuring that a claimant receives benefits for the reduction in earning capacity attributable to the work-related injury.
Second, I differ with the majority opinion to the extent that it can be interpreted as foreclosing an equal protection claim on the basis that no classification is present, because the pertinent statutory language does not specifically address the class of non-injured workers. See Majority Opinion, at 331-35, 883 A.2d at 532-33. Cf. Hooper v. Bernalillo County *340 Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 , 105 S.Ct. 2862 , 86 L.Ed.2d 487 (1985) (holding that a state tax exemption statute that applies only to veterans living in the state before a specified date violated equal protection principles). Nonetheless, I agree with the majority’s application of the rational basis test to Section 204(a), as well as the ultimate conclusion that the statutory provision is not violative of equal protection principles.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746456. Public record. Not legal advice.