History
  • No items yet
midpage
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
11 A.3d 960
| Pa. | 2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Oliver sued regarding subrogation rights after a Pittsburgh police officer received Heart and Lung Act (HLA) benefits following a 1996 motor-vehicle accident.
  • Employer City of Pittsburgh sought subrogation against the tort settlement proceeds on the theory that Act 44 reinstated employer subrogation for HLA benefits via Section 25(b).
  • MVFRL previously barred subrogation from a claimant's tort recovery for workers' compensation benefits and benefits in lieu thereof, creating anti-subrogation for WCA benefits.
  • Act 44, effective 1993, repealed §1720 'insofar as it relates to workers' compensation payments or other benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act,' but did not explicitly mention Heart and Lung Act (HLA) benefits.
  • Commonwealth Court divisions were split: Brown (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) permitted subrogation for HLA by in pari materia logic; Williams (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) rejected that extension.
  • The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether §25(b) affects HLA subrogation, with focus on plain language and statutory interpretation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does Act 44 §25(b) repeal §1720 as to HLA benefits? Oliver argues §25(b) only targets WCA; HLA remains barred. City argues §25(b) repeals §1720 broadly, including HLA. §25(b) does not affect HLA; not an HLA subrogation repeal.
Should in pari materia be applied between WCA and HLA to interpret §25(b)? Oliver contends Brown applies broader; Williams should control. City favors in pari materia to align WCA/HLA subrogation. No in pari materia reading required; §25(b) unambiguously relates to WCA.

Key Cases Cited

  • Brown v. Rosenberger, 723 A.2d 745 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (rejected Williams rationale; supported HLA subrogation via read of Act 44)
  • City of Pittsburgh v. WCAB (Williams), 810 A.2d 760 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (held HLA benefits not subject to subrogation; later questioned by Brown)
  • Fulmer v. Pennsylvania State Police, 647 A.2d 616 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (interpretation of MVFRL subrogation provisions relating to public employees)
  • City of Erie v. WCAB (Annunziata), 838 A.2d 598 (Pa. 2003) (Heart and Lung Act remedial framework and public-safety protections)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jan 28, 2011
Citation: 11 A.3d 960
Docket Number: 31 WAP 2009
Court Abbreviation: Pa.