City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 620 Pa. 345

Claimant Dorothy Robinson, Pittsburgh police officer, sustained injuries in 1997 and 2001 leading to light-duty work and later loss of that position.
In 2004 Claimant sought and received a disability pension after doctors certified she could not perform her pre‑injury duties.
Employer obtained an independent medical exam in 2007 which concluded Claimant could perform modified-duty work; she was notified she could return to work in a modified position.
Employer filed a petition to suspend benefits in November 2007 asserting Claimant voluntarily removed herself from the workforce by not seeking employment.
WCJ denied the suspension, finding Claimant had not voluntarily withdrawn; he noted lack of light-duty work and absence of evidence of available suitable jobs.
Commonwealth Court (en banc plurality) adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances standard, holding that retirement had not been shown and that the burden remained with Employer to prove retirement or demand evidence of suitable work when retirement is not proven.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the employer bears the burden to prove retirement under Henderson when seeking suspension based on voluntary withdrawal.	Robinson argues no automatic retirement presumption from pension receipt; burden remains on employer to show retirement or inability to work.	Robinson contends Henderson creates a presumption of retirement upon pension receipt, shifting burden to Claimant to prove continuing attachment.	Burden remains with employer to prove retirement; pension receipt alone is not conclusive.
Whether the receipt of a disability pension alone suffices to prove retirement and justify suspension.	Robinson asserts pension receipt is not dispositive of total retirement from the workforce.	Robinson argues any pension implies retirement and should trigger a presumption favoring suspension.	Receipt of a disability pension is not alone sufficient to prove retirement; must be weighed with other evidence.
Whether the employer must prove availability of suitable work within Claimant's restrictions to sustain a suspension absent retirement.	Robinson contends the employer failed to prove availability of suitable work and thus benefits should not be suspended.	Robinson argues that without retirement, the employer should only show earning power or job referrals.	If retirement is not proven, the employer must show available suitable work within Claimant's restrictions; here it did not.

Henderson, 669 A.2d 912 (Pa. 1995) (retirement requires show of seeking employment or forced retirement; no blanket presumption from pension)
Petrisek, 640 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 1994) (disability that does not affect earning power yields no benefits; disability with earning power loss is compensable)
Kachinski v. WCAB (Vepco Construction Co.), 532 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1987) (process for revising disability status with referrals to open jobs; basis for earning power analysis)
Riddle v. WCAB (Allegheny City Elec., Inc.), 981 A.2d 1288 (Pa. 2009) (discusses Section 306(b)(2) in light of pre/post-1996 amendments; role of Kachinski post-amendments)
South Hills Health System v. WCAB (Kiefer), 806 A.2d 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2002) (employer may use expert earning-power evidence to prove availability or lack of job opportunities)