holding that statute designating the “most recent edition” of the American Medical Association guide as the source for determining percentage of disability for workers’ compensation purposes was an impermissible delegation because the legislature did not set any particular policy or “prescribe any standards to guide and restrain the AMA’s discretion”
How later courts described this case
- holding that statute designating the “most recent edition” of the American Medical Association guide as the source for determining percentage of disability for workers’ compensation purposes was an impermissible delegation because the legislature did not set any particular policy or “prescribe any standards to guide and restrain the AMA’s discretion”
- providing that, when the General Assembly assigns the authority and discretion to execute or administer a law, the state constitution imposes two fundamental limitations: "first, the basic policy choices must be made by the [l]egislature; and second, the legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions"
- relying upon the mandate of Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution that “[t]he legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
- finding the IRE process under former Section 306(a.2) of the Act2 unconstitutional and striking that provision from the Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR,
Concurring
I support the core legal analysis contained in the majority opinion. At least in the absence of some sort of ongoing legislative or administrative review or oversight, I agree that *669 prospective medical texts cannot be incorporated into a scheme affecting citizens’ substantial rights. My differences with the majority opinion are more a matter of approach than substance, as, for example, I find it unnecessary to even consider that the American Medical Association might concoct anything, see Majority Opinion, at 658,161 A.3d at 835, or that the General Assembly may have acted on an avoidance rationale, see id. at 661 n.6,161 A.3d at 837 n.6.