CITY OF ERIE, Appellant v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANNUNZIATA), Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided Dec. 17, 2003.
Argued Sept. 8, 2003.
838 A.2d 598
Wife argues that in a non-bifurcated divorce proceeding, a marital settlement agreement is a form of executory contract, and when the non-performing spouse dies before performance of its terms and before the issuance of a divorce decree, the divorce action abates, the court loses subject matter jurisdiction, the agreement is a nullity and the survivor accedes to the property. But this matter was bifurcated—at Wife‘s request. Wife does not suggest that when the trial court entered the consent order, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, only that jurisdiction in that forum is now lost. Even assuming arguendo that the family court division loses jurisdiction, the matter is now in Orphans’ Court. Wife cannot now “play fast and loose” with the courts and change her position to suit her own ends. Accordingly, I would affirm the Superior Court on this basis.
Justice CASTILLE and NIGRO join this concurring opinion.
Amber Marie Kenger, Mechanicburg, Richard C. Lengler, Harrisburg, for W.C.A.B., Appellee.
Charles D. Agresti, Erie, for Jeffrey Annunziata, Appellee.
Before: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and LAMB, JJ.
OPINION
Justice NEWMAN.
We granted allocatur in this case to address whether a police officer who suffers an injury in the course of his duties, which is compensable pursuant to the statute commonly referred to as the Heart and Lung Act,1 can collect and retain, in addition to Heart and Lung Act compensation, benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act2 for the loss of earning power he suffered in concurrent, supplemental employment. The Commonwealth Court determined that Jeffrey Annunziata (Annunziata), the claimant in the present case, was entitled to receive and keep both Heart and Lung Act and workers’ compensation benefits concurrently. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part the Order of the Commonwealth Court.
Annunziata sustained a fracture of his right tibial plateau on April 22, 1998, when another vehicle struck the motorcycle that he was then operating. At the time of the accident, Annunziata was performing his duties as a police officer for the City of Erie (City). At the time of the injury, to supplement his police officer salary, Annunziata served as a part-time security guard for the Holiday Inn Downtown hotel (Holiday Inn) and a part-time automatic teller machine (ATM) maintenance person for Great Lakes Armored, Inc. (Great Lakes). By Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) dated May 13, 1998, the City accepted its liability to Annunziata for workers’ compensation benefits, but stated that the injured officer would continue to receive his full salary, pursuant to the Heart and Lung Act, “in lieu of [workers‘] compensation” benefits. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 2a.
The City continued to pay Annunziata his $777.81 full weekly salary for his police position. On August 5, 1998, the injury fully resolved and Annunziata returned to his pre-injury positions with the City, Holiday Inn, and Great Lakes. On November 4, 1999, Annunziata filed a Claim Petition, seeking workers’ compensation benefits from the City for the loss of earnings from his employment with Holiday Inn and Great Lakes during the period of his disability, from April 22, 1998, through August 5, 1998. In support of his Claim Petition, Annunziata provided the City with a record of his wages earned at Holiday Inn and Great Lakes during the year immediately preceding his injury. The City revised the NCP to reflect these additional earnings pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides that where an employee was “working under concurrent contracts with two or more employers, his wages from all such employers shall be considered as if earned from the employer liable for compensation.”
Pursuant to Section 105.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, an average weekly wage of $988.37 would entitle a claimant to $561.00 in benefits.
During the time salary for temporary incapacity shall be paid by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or by the Delaware River Port Authority or by the county, city, borough, town or township, any workmen‘s compensation, received or collected by any such employe for such period, shall be turned over to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or to the Delaware River Port Authority or to such county, city, borough, town or township, and paid into the treasury thereof, and if such payment shall not be so made by the employe the amount so due the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Delaware River Port Authority or the county, city, borough, town or township shall be deducted from any salary then or thereafter becoming due and owing.
The WCJ denied the Claim Petition, stating that where “the cause of disability is related to a work injury, the workers’
Annunziata appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which reversed the determination of the WCJ. The WCAB concluded that wage loss benefits paid pursuant to the Worker‘s Compensation Act, as a result of concurrent employment, “are not subject to the reimbursement requirement of the Heart and Lung Act.” Opinion of the WCAB at 5. The WCAB reasoned that “it would be inequitable to require the reimbursement of wage loss benefits arising from concurrent employment” as such “would deprive [Annunziata] of compensation for wages he would have earned had he not sustained a work-related injury.” Id. at 6.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Order of the WCAB in a published Opinion. City of Erie v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Annunziata), 799 A.2d 946 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). The court noted that “the compensation programs and the employers’ obligations under the two statutes are separate and conceptually different,” thus implying that compensation pursuant to the Heart and Lung Act should not foreclose the collection of workers’ compensation benefits. Id. at 951-952. The Commonwealth Court explained that the goal of workers’ compensation is to “create a reasonable picture of a claimants pre-injury earning experience for use as a projection of potential future wages and, correspondingly, earnings loss.” Id. at 952 (quoting Triangle Building Center v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Linch), 560 Pa. 540, 746 A.2d 1108, 1112 (2000)). The court held that the set-off provision in the Heart and Lung Act applies only where the employee seeks or receives workers’ compensation benefits for the same employment for which he is receiving Heart and Lung benefits, not concurrent employment. The Commonwealth Court remand
DISCUSSION
In this case, we are asked to define the parameters of the interrelation between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act. Specifically, we must resolve two issues: (1) whether an injured worker, who receives Heart and Lung benefits for his primary police employment, can also receive workers’ compensation benefits for concurrent employment; and (2) if yes, whether the employee can retain those benefits, or whether the employee must forward that money to his employer pursuant to the subrogation/reimbursement provision of the Heart and Lung Act. As a foundational matter, a brief discussion of the two acts and their purposes is in order.
As we have described, “[t]he Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial legislation designed to compensate claimants for earnings loss occasioned by work-related injuries.” Triangle Building Center, 746 A.2d at 1111. The statute seeks “to provide recompense commensurate with the damage from accidental injury, as a fair exchange for relinquishing every other right of action against the employer.” Rudy v. McCloskey Co., 348 Pa. 401, 35 A.2d 250, 253 (1944) (citing Blake v. Wilson, 268 Pa. 469, 112 A. 126 (1920)). Accord Vescio v. Pennsylvania Electric Co., 336 Pa. 502, 9 A.2d 546, 549 (1939) (the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is “to substitute a method of accident insurance in place of common-law rights and liabilities for ... all employees” covered by its provisions). The goal of the workers’ compensation legislative scheme is to relieve the employee “from the economic consequences of his injury and make [those consequences] a part of the cost of operation of the business, to be paid ultimately by the consuming public....” Rudy, 35 A.2d at 253. It is well settled that, “[i]n construing the Act, we are mindful that, being remedial in nature and intended to benefit the Pennsylvania worker, the Act must be liberally construed to effectuate
Where an employee is totally disabled, meaning that the injury results in a total loss of earning power for a period of time, he or she is entitled to receive benefits amounting to sixty-six and two-thirds percent of his or her average weekly wage.5
In contrast, “[t]he Heart and Lung Act covers specified public employees engaged primarily in police work, firefighting, or other jobs involving public safety. The Act was created to ensure that, if these employees were injured or otherwise disabled in the course of carrying out their hazardous duties, they would be guaranteed continued full income until their return to duty.” Cunningham v. Pennsylvania State Police, 510 Pa. 74, 507 A.2d 40, 43 (1986) (emphasis added).6 “[T]he best interest of the municipality and not the
The amount of compensation that the Heart and Lung Act provides is the “full rate of salary,”
Another significant distinction between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act is that the Heart and Lung Act is to be strictly construed.
It is within this framework that we examine the ability of an injured employee, who is entitled to and receiving Heart and Lung Act benefits, to seek workers’ compensation for concurrent employment. The City contends that, by using the terms “any” and “shall” in section 1(a) of the Heart and Lung Act when referring to the requirement that an injured employee turn over workers’ compensation benefits received to the entity paying Heart and Lung benefits, the General Assembly expressed a clear intent to deprive such an employee of the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits. Moreover, the City argues, by providing, an increased benefit to those covered by the Heart and Lung Act, the General Assembly already has rewarded individuals, such as Annunziata, for the necessary and sometimes dangerous public functions they perform. The City avers that the Heart and Lung Act, by its clear language, prohibits collection from a collateral source for the same work injury, irrespective of whether the funds the injured worker seeks from the collateral source are for concurrent employment.
We cannot accept this argument. The unambiguous language of Section 1(a) of the Heart and Lung Act, to which the City so often refers, clearly contemplates the ability of an injured employee to seek workers’ compensation. That sec
Alternatively, the City avers that because Annunziata received $777.81 in Heart and Lung benefits, he is not entitled to receipt of workers’ compensation because his average weekly wage, including concurrent employment, of $988.37, would entitle him to only $561.00 in workers’ compensation benefits. However, this argument assumes that the interplay between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act allows an injured employee to choose only which set of benefits he desires. There is no authority for such a constraint in either enactment, as the Workers’ Compensation Act does not make any mention of the Heart and Lung Act and, as we have held above, the Heart and Lung Act does not take the place of
However, it does not necessarily follow from our affirmance of the right of a claimant to seek and receive workers’ compensation benefits for concurrent employment that a claimant can retain those benefits. The clear language of Section 1(a) provides that ”any workmen‘s compensation benefits received or collected ... shall be turned over.”
To construe the term “any” workers’ compensation in Section 1(a) to include benefits for loss of earnings from the concurrent employment and require the claimant to reimburse such benefits to the employer would result in ignoring the mandate of Section 309(e) of the Workers’ Compensation Act that the wages from the concurrent employment be included in computing wage loss benefits. Under such construction of Section 1(a), the claimant would be inequitably deprived of the compensation for wages that would have been earned had he or she not sustained the work injury while performing the duties of the primary employment.
City of Erie, 799 A.2d at 953. Because injured workers’ who are not covered by the Heart and Lung Act can recover workers’ compensation benefits for primary and concurrent employment, Annunziata reasons that he should be able to recover over and above his Heart and Lung benefits for his concurrent employment. In making this argument, Annunzia-
In light of the legislative directive that we construe the Heart and Lung Act strictly pursuant to
We are not unmindful of the harshness of this result. We recognize that the community directly affected by the disposition of this case is comprised of individuals whom we ask, on a daily basis, to perform some of the most hazardous duties in our society, made evermore perilous in this post-9/11 era. Unfortunately, the compensation that firefighters and police officers earn is not commensurate with the importance of their jobs in our society and the dangers they encounter. Therefore, it is understandable that these individuals will seek concurrent employment to supplement their salaries. It is neither our goal nor our intention to approve of a legislative landscape that wholly fails to take this into account. Howev-
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, we affirm in part and vacate in part the Order of the Commonwealth Court. Annunziata is entitled to seek workers’ compensation for his concurrent employment, but Section 1(a) of the Heart and Lung Act,
Chief Justice CAPPY files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Justice LAMB joins.
Chief Justice CAPPY concurring and dissenting.
I join the majority‘s analysis and conclusion that a police officer, who suffers an injury in the course of his duties, may collect benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act in addition to Heart and Lung Act compensation. I dissent, however, from the majority‘s analysis and conclusion that police officers cannot retain workers’ compensation benefits received for the loss of earning from concurrent employment. Rather, I believe that the mandates contained in the Statutory
The Heart and Lung Act provides in relevant part that:
“During the time salary for temporary incapacity shall be paid by the ... city ... any workmen‘s compensation, received or collected by any such employe for such period, shall be turned over to the ... city....”
This approach treats those police officers whose only employment is service as an officer in exactly the same way it treats those police officers who work one or more additional non-service related jobs to make ends meet. By treating these police officers the same, regardless of their different employment situation, the majority‘s approach fails to give effect to the Workers’ Compensation Act by depriving police officers who work multiple non-service jobs of any benefits for the loss of earnings from their concurrent employment.
As its opinion shows, the majority is not unaware of or uncaring of this result. Indeed, the majority readily acknowledges that “it is apparent that the General Assembly in drafting the Heart and Lung Act did not consider the effect of concurrent employment” and that it is “not unmindful of the harshness of this result,” yet the majority laments that “we cannot see any way around the word ‘any,‘” Majority Opinion, 575 Pa. at p. 607, 838 A.2d at p. 606 and that “our hands are tied.” Majority Opinion, 575 Pa. at p. 608, 838 A.2d at p. 606.
The Statutory Construction Act, however, provides relief for the majority‘s understandable concern and for the “harshness” faced by police officers working multiple jobs. Specifically,
Here, both the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act relate not only to the same person, but also to the same thing—compensation for a work-related injury. Thus, the two statutes are in pari materia. Moreover, the Legislature clearly intended the two statutes to be construed together in a consistent fashion by the fact that the Heart and Lung Act, by its terms, specifically recognizes a police officer‘s concurrent receipt of benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Thus, pursuant to the Statutory Construction Act, this Court is mandated to construe the statutes together and to give effect to both of these statutory enactments, if possible. The majority, however, fails to do so. Giving effect to the two statutes is clearly possible in the situation regarding concurrent employment. Indeed, without so stating, the Commonwealth Court did just this in construing the Heart and Lung Act.
Specifically, the Commonwealth Court‘s approach requiring officers to return workers’ compensation benefits received for police employment to the employer, but allowing officers to retain benefits received for loss of concurrent employment, gives effect to both statutes, is consistent with the policies underlying both statutes, and is eminently fair. It gives no windfall to police officers and yet takes into account any concurrent employment and recognizes the loss in earning power regarding the other non-service related employment due to the injury occurring while on duty as a police officer.
Justice LAMB joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.