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 concern”
How later courts described this case
- 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 concern”
- refusing to consider separate Article I, Section 26 claims for lack of developed argument, holding instead that challenged provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate federal equal protection guarantee because classification regarding receipt of severance benefits did not implicate fundamental property right or create a suspect classification
- 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
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that § 204(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 71(a), allows both self-insured and privately-insured employers to offset Workers’ Compensation benefits in the amount of a severance payment. However, I write separately because I do not agree that § 204(a) is ambiguous with respect to the question presented here. I find the phrase “employer directly liable for the payment of compensation and the benefits from a pension plan” is clear and unambiguous. See id. Rite Aid is the employer directly responsible for providing its employees with Workers’ Compensation coverage and pension benefits. If Rite Aid decides to contract that responsibility out to a private insurance company, it does not absolve Rite Aid of its duty to provide such benefits to its employees. Thus, Rite Aid remains the “employer directly liable for the payment of compensation and the benefits from a pension plan” despite the fact that Rite Aid does not directly send the Workers’ Compensation payments to its injured employees.
I agree that the legislature included the phrase “employer directly liable” in § 204(a) to account for a situation where a claimant has more than one employer. Majority Op., at 328-30, 883 A.2d at 530. If a claimant is currently receiving compensation from a previous employer for a permanent injury, for example, and is also currently receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits relative to a separate injury from his current employer when he is laid-off and receives a severance payment, the phrase “employer directly liable” ensures that only the current employer takes the offset. I also agree that the General Assembly did not intend for § 204(a) to permit a *341 self-insured employer to take the offset, and yet deny privately-insured employers the same privilege. Majority Op., at 328-31, 883 A.2d at 530-31. However, while I agree that both self-insured and privately-insured employers are entitled to the offset, I do not believe it is necessary to engage in statutory construction to reach such a conclusion. I would hold both the self-insured and privately-insured employers are entitled to the offset, and that the private insurer in this scenario is entitled to take the offset by virtue of employer’s entitlement to the offset.
Thus, I would hold § 204(a) is unambiguous, and it means just what it says, i.e., that the employer directly liable for the payment of compensation or pension benefits—whether the employer pays those benefits himself or contracts with a private insurance company to pay his employees those benefits—is entitled to an offset in the amount of a severance benefit against an award of Workers’ Compensation benefits.
Justice NIGRO joins this concurring opinion.