*1 937A.2d 430 GILLETTE, Individually Debbie and as Administratrix Estate of John Deceased
v. WURST, A.W., Catherine as Parent and Guardian of Minor, Wurst, Jerome J. Wurst and Catherine Landscape Contractor, and J.J. Wurst Inc. Minor, J.T., through Legal Parents Guardians, Tury Tury, Joe and Noreen and Joe
Tury Tury, Individually and Noreen Jerome and Catherine Wurst Wurst Appeal Group of Utica National Insurance
and General McLane School District.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of Argued Sept. 2006. Decided Dec. *3 Kroto, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Joseph, Quinn,
George Inc, Erie, McLane Group for Utica Nat. Ins. General Dist., appellant. School O’Connor, for Schultz, Philadelphia,
Mark Charles Cozen Professionals, amicus appellant Subrogation Nat. Ass’n of curiae. Law, P.C., Natalie, Natalie, at Atty.
Alan John Alan J.
A.W., appellee. Co., L.P.A., Beach- Longo, Longo
Charles V. Charles V. OH, wood, appellees. for Debbie Gillette and John J.T., Scyoc, Tury, appel- Van for Joe Noreen William lees. *4 Dapper, Eugene Dapper, Douglas Stipanovich,
Robert J. Baldasare, Benson, Kane, for Behling Pittsburgh, & Jerome Wurst, appellees. Catherine Sacks, L.L.P., Hait, Har- Anderson Smigel,
Fred Harold & Ass’n, amicus curiae. Lawyers’ appellee for Pa. Trial risburg, C.J., CASTILLE, NEWMAN, GAPPY, BEFORE: SAYLOR, EAKIN, BALDWIN, BAER and JJ. THE
OPINION ANNOUNCING JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Justice EAKIN. Gillette, teacher,
John a middle school shot and killed student, A.W., an by chaperoning eighth-grade while dance. student, J.T., A.W. also shot another who survived without permanent injury. National Insurance Appellant Group Utica is the workers’ for provider General McLane District, School where decedent worked and was killed. wife, fatal paid Utica claim benefits to John Gillette’s Debbie (“Gillette”). Gillette estate, as executor of the decedent’s commenced a
wrongful against death action and his parents. A.W. Statute states:
(a) may brought, General rule.—An action under proce- rules, dures prescribed by general to recover damages of an the death individual caused act or or neglect negligence unlawful violence or of another if no for the recovery damages same claimed the wrongful injured death action was obtained during individual injuries his lifetime and actions for the same prior are consolidated with the death claim so as to avoid duplicate recovery.
(b) Beneficiaries. —... of action created this [T]he section shall only exist for the benefit of the children spouse, or parents damages deceased.... The recovered shall be distributed to the in the proportion they beneficiaries personal would take the estate the decedent in the case and without intestacy liability creditors the deceased under the person statutes of this Commonwealth. 8301(a)-(b) added). (emphasis J.T. also brought Wursts, action and the cases two were consoli- dated. agreed J.T. to settle their claims against $300,000 the Wursts for the limit of the Wursts’ homeowners’ $288,000, policy; insurance Gillette was receive and J.T. would receive remainder.
If intestacy scheme was used to distribute Pennsylvania’s award, 8301(b), § prescribed the Gillettes’ as the remainder $288,000 of payment of the after counsel fees and costs award share spousal have Gillette with provided would $109,493.77; the three each of decedent’s children have $26,497.93.1 However, the settle- proposed received agreement, waived her of the any ment Gillette share funds, $12,000 exception settlement for the dece- with remaining funeral net to be expenses; dent’s funds were three among Daughter Abby distributed children. $146,987.55, to receive and the each couples’ two sons $15,000. Although complaint were receive included survival, claims for both death and parties did apportion the settlement. The parties the court for petitioned approval pro- distribution; settlement and posed appellant same day, intervene, filed a petition asserting it was entitled to subrogate share of Gillette’s the settlement recover $167,934 in fatal claim benefits it paid following her her Appellant husband’s death. 671 of the cited Workers’ Com- Act, § 1 pensation P.S. et seq., support of its claim. Section states: § 671. Subrogation employer rights employee
against third persons; subrogation insurer employer or to amount paid to award prior
Where the compensable injury is caused in in part whole or by the act party, or omission of a third shall employer subrogated of the employe, personal Probate, (PEF Code) 1. Section 2102 of the Estates and Fiduciaries Code states: surviving spouse intestate share of a decedent’s is: (3) surviving If there are issue of the decedent all of are issue whom also, $30,000 surviving spouse plus of the the first one-half balance of the intestate estate. 2102(3). provides 20 Pa.C.S. Section 2103 that if no surviv- there is ing spouse surviving spouse or if there remains a balance to which the entitled, issue, pass the balance shall if decedent's Id., 2103(1). equal exist. Each of the decedent's issue shall take Id., § shares. or his such dependents, his estate
representative, *6 the compensation payable to the extent of under party third employer.... article the this Id., § 671 (footnote omitted). intervene, to but petition
The trial court Utica’s granted the jurisdiction it to resolve subroga was without determined (CNF, issue, citing Romine v. WCAB Potato tion Inc./The (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (“The Sack), n. 10 A.2d 856-57 jurisdiction adjudicate has no of Common Pleas Court Act, Compensation] including under the the matters [Workers’ liens.”) (citations application of the subrogation issues omitted). 1/27/04, regard Trial at 2. Opinion, With Court settlement, the death the petition approve the concluded, nothing precludes in the law which court “[t]here Wrongful of those entitled to recover under the all from on a different manner of distribution.” agreeing Statute Id., settlement, approved 3. The court the Utica at appealed. in the argued Wrongful the distribution set forth
Utica distribution, means of citing Death Statute is the exclusive Rossman, (1972), Seymour 449 Pa. A.2d 804 which referred to in the Wrongful held the intestate distribution mandatory.2 Utica asserted Gillette Death Statute is was $30,000 balance, the plus to take the first one-half of compelled initially approved Seymour, the a settlement and 2. In trial court distri- third-party greater part that awarded the settlement bution surviving spouse the proceeds to the decedent's and awarded dece- prior marriage only slight daughter pay-out. minor from a dent's daughter's Upon objection, approv- trial vacated its order the court equal ing the settlement and instead ordered distribution shares to woman, prescribed by applicable provision intestacy as each Id.., appealed, arguing that time. at 806. The widow law at proceeds of a action need not be distributed in strict compliance with distribution She asserted since the intestate scheme. compensate dependent relative for the the Statute enacted to each death, parties permitted they suffered due to the should loss appeal, goal. a distribution scheme to achieve that On this fashion rejected argument, finding expression the widow's "[t]he Court legislature distribution the funds recovered intent of that under of 1855 be distributed in accordance with the Death Act intestacy provided in the event of is unmistak- manner for distribution Id., (footnote omitted). ably clear.” at 808-09 from subrogation permitted should have been Utica Compen- §to of the Workers’ pursuant share spousal that accept if that even Gillette wished argued sation Act. Utica scheme, pre- nevertheless she was an alternative distribution way it in a that defeated Utica’s structuring cluded from subrogation to ad- unnecessary it Court determined was Superior jurisdiction that it lacked dress the trial court’s conclusion interest in order to subrogation or enforce Utica’s determine although claims. The court reasoned settle Utica’s of the Act is absolute subrogation created construction of a parties’ and cannot be defeated settlement, assumes that the ‘claimant’ proposition “this is asserted holds a whom interest *7 current, of the proceeds enforceable interest in the legally or, at least at party recovery,’ recovery ‘third acceded time it.” prior some and exercised dominion over Gillette Wurst, (Pa.Super.2005). 869 A.2d §
The court plain language permits noted the are to disclaim. by intestacy” individuals who “entitled take Id., at 494. It contrasted this from phrase language with 8301(b) Statute, § states an Wrongful Death which under the as it be award Statute shall distributed would distributed “in the case of Id. The court consid- intestacy.” provisions right ered these two and the broad nature of in granted nothing Sey- disclaim and concluded mour, Statute, the Wrongful Compen- or the Workers’ granted by sation Act limits the broad to disclaim Id., PEF at 493-94. provision disclaimer Code.3 “[S]ec- beneficiary PEF 3. Section 6201 of the Code allows an intestate disclaim an intestate share: person property A in have devolved to whom an interest would will, means, including beneficiary appointee whatever a under a power appointment, person under the exercise of a a entided by intestacy, joint survivorship, take a tenant with a donee of transfer, third-party beneficiary an inter a donee a vivos (including annuity policies contract beneficiaries of life insurance and plans), pension, profit-sharing employee and a and other benefit interest, person may it in whole or entitled to disclaimed disclaim part by a written disclaimer.... The to disclaim shall exist net, tion 6201 casts a not encompassing merely wide person by intestacy,’ interest of ‘a entitled to take but also the anyone property interest of ‘to whom an interest ” Id., have devolved whatever means.’ at 494 (quoting 6201). The court of the Act and determined only the cases it establish that a com- interpreting “workers’ claimant interest in a third pensation may apportion his tort party recovery compensation to defeat workers’ subro- so, gation apportion- interest. Should he to do attempt operates ment be deemed voidable to the extent that it will subrogation defeat a lien for benefits as paid Id., underlying injury.” the same at 496. concluded her
Having rightfully disclaimed interest in the settlement —and since a disclaimant is treated as having predeceased the decedent —the court determined Utica was not entitled to share of the subrogate recovery Gillette’s since she never had interest in that recovery. Since Utica was entitled to assert only against its lien children,4 her the court affirmed trial court’s approving order settlement and distribution. proposed Id., at 494-95. granted appeal
This Court allowance of to consider party claiming payment whether a entitlement under the may Death Statute disclaim her share of those offered, proceeds once her disclaimer effectively negates when *8 subrogation valid entitlement to of an insurance carrier. law, As a question scope plenary, this is of our of review is Miller, our of Kopko standard review is de novo. v. 586 Pa. 170, 766, (2006). 892 A.2d notwithstanding any limitation on the interest in the nature aof spendthrift provision or similar restriction. §
20 Pa.C.S. 6201. action[, compensation 4. a widow institutes a "[W]here [workers'] 671,] by § generated presence P.S. and an award to her increased is children, compensation subrogated or existence of carrier is not recovery by received the children in a death action.” Greenville, 512, (1971). v. 442 Pa. 273 A.2d Anderson initially jurisdiction. We address trial court’s settlement, approved nothing trial court the proposed finding Wrongful in the prohibited parties Death Statute from on a that agreeing distribution differed from intestate 8301(b) Statute, scheme forth in set but its noted decision approve any “is intended the distribution for purposes Wrongful other than those Death attendant parties’ agreement Statute. The settlement appor does not tion to a damages particular type claim such as loss consortium, Wrongful and the Death Statute does author ize the to make independent judgment [c]ourt 1/27/04, regard.” Trial Court at 3 Opinion, (citing Thompson (USF Co.), (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (claim WCAB & G A.2d 635 ant employer’s statutory cannot avoid subrogation lien apportioning third-party pain award to rather suffering wages)). than lost
There is no Utica question is entitled to Act plain language clearly since this case involves compensable injury caused the act of a party. third Under subrogated Utica “shall be the right of the employe, his personal representative, his or dependents, estate against such third party” workers’ bene- paid. However, fits it 77 P.S. 671. clear that the equally legislature intended for an award under the Statute be administered as it would in the case intestacy, and that the broad right to disclaim under the PEF Code person allows whom an in property “[a] interest means, have whatever ... including devolved a person entitled take by intestacy” disclaim it. 20 Pa.C.S. § 6201.
The courts of pleas jurisdiction common lack to adjudi cate Workers’ Compensation involving claims issues including Romine, However, at subrogation. 856-57 n. the issue solely here does not arise under the Compensation Workers’ Act; rather, it demands consideration of the interplay between Act, Utica’s unquestioned right subrogation under the Gil award, lette’s to a and the intestacy laws. Therefore, this matter properly filed before trial court
554 not be in judge, rather than administrative law who would adjudicate the issue. It to is position claim, jurisdiction to existence the valid adjudicate place, it in the first the issue. answers provides
The Act an abso Compensation Workers’ is it lute and its threefold: subrogation, purpose recovery injury, double the claimant for same prevents it that an is not employer required pay ensures prevents of a and it a third from negligence party, party third for his Brubacher Exca liability wrongful conduct. escaping 168, 1273, 835 Inc. v. 575 Pa. A.2d vating, (Bridges), WCAB (2003) (Bressi), Dale v. 491 Pa. (citing Mfg. 1277 Co. WCAB (1980)). addition, 493, 653, In of the purpose 421 A.2d 654 Act the workers of this as whole is benefit Common wealth; therefore, liberally must construed provisions its be its objectives, interpre effectuate humanitarian and borderline & injured Harper are in the favor. party’s tations construed (Brown), 484, 1319, 543 Pa. 672 1321 Collins v. WCAB A.2d (1996).
The of the Death Statute is to purpose decedent’s their Tulewicz relatives for loss. compensate Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, v. 529 Southeastern (1992). 427, 588, Pa. 606 431 The are damages A.2d recovered estate; rather, they therefore of the decedent’s part family members for constitute the individual Id., Preitz, 422 their loss. at 431 Miller Pa. 221 (citing (1966), grounds, 320 overruled on other Kassab v. Cen A.2d (1968)). 217, 246 A.2d 848 Soya, tral Pa. 6201 PEF Code granted disclaim under interest in have any “person property to whom an means, person ... a including
devolved whatever entitled 20 Pa.C.S. 6201. The comment by intestacy....” take Pennsylvania Joint State Government Com- supplied of the may determining mission—which used intent 1939; In re Martin’s Assembly, General see (1950) Estate, 120, 365 Pa. A.2d one of the —states legislature’s goals enacting provisions disclaimer *10 property requirements “to liberalize the law PEF Code was on to avoid taxes legitimate attempts for disclaimer so that by provi- not be frustrated law gifts property unwanted will tax purposes.” than those required sions that are stricter (1976). Thus, 6201, § Govt. Comm. Cmt. Jt. St. Compensa- the of the Workers’ compensatory purposes unlike Statutes, the to disclaim is Wrongful right tion and recovery other claims on the most often used to avoid taxes or statute. under another plain language
The matter is the by resolved is compensable injury § states that which when to subrogated an “shall be by party, employer caused a third ... against right employe representative [or] added). Thus, party.” (emphasis such third 77 P.S. insurer, not to the amount having paid subrogated Gillette; rather, to the subrogated it is actually by received properly Gillette right share that Gillette has receive. a party, right from the third as she had requested payment to the intestate sched apportioned according receive an award of its effectively passed ule. That to Utica virtue right was claim. The to disclaim under legitimate subrogation right § 671 right subrogation statutes and the under intestacy here, circumstances, cannot both exist but under disclaim, since that which she seeks exercise is a held not her but Utica. disclaim regard comports Sey conclusion in this with Our under the just party may apportion as a award mour — compen Death Act in a a Wrongful way defeats workers’ plaintiff under provider’s subrogation right sation has instituted an action under the Death Stat who then entitlement may ute disclaim award defeat the 671. We thereby subrogation since each may conclude these statutes are not irreconcilable construction. purpose its intended under the above achieve clearly benefits to minimize or avoid taxes is Disclaiming statute. permitted by Disclaiming avoid permitted. entitled is not private party statutorily which decision, Accordingly, Superior reverse the Court’s which we approving parties’ pro- affirmed the trial court’s order matter posed settlement and distribution. We remand this the trial court for an order the settlement distributing pro- in a opinion. ceeds manner consistent with this reversed; relinquished. Order case remanded. Jurisdiction participate Former Justice NEWMAN did not decision this case. join
Justice CASTILLE and Justice BALDWIN opinion. *11 opinion.
Chief Justice files a concurring CAPPY BAER a dissenting opinion. Justice files dissents. Justice SAYLOR concurring.
Chief Justice CAPPY join I in Opinion Announcing Judgment the Court result, I myself its but disassociate from its rationale. The lead find that a opinion right would Debbie Gillette had Act, receive award under the and that Ms. right passed by operation Gillette’s had of the Workers’ Act to Compensation compen- Utica National Insurance which sated Ms. Gillette for the death of her husband while at work. in opinion explain right lead does how this vested Ms. Gillette, By who had disclaimed her share of the award. law, operation of “a disclaimer relates back for all purposes shall, the date of death of the decedent and purposes determining rights parties, equivalent of other disclaimant died before the decedent in a case of having devolution or 6205. There- intestacy.” will fore, legal Ms. Gillette’s disclaimer creates a fiction that her fatally assumes that she died before husband was wound- ed, acquired and thus she could not have a to which attach. Utica’s could I reach the same result as the lead because I opinion conclusion, natural would follow the rule of disclaimer to its in solely award, how it affects the wrongful death but also in her fictional how death before the death of her spouse would have affected workers’ If compensation award. Ms. Gillette is treated as predeceased disclaimer, because of her we can assume that the Gillette children would have received not only award, the wrongful death but also the workers’ compensation case, award. That being the Utica would have been subrogated to the children’s right to receive a wrongful award, death having already paid them workers’ If benefits. requires disclaimer us to indulge legal fiction that treats Ms. as if predeceased she has her then husband we are bound to this course to logical follow its conclusion in the uphold law and Utica’s to be subrogat- ed to directly Otherwise, whomever benefits. we leave a loophole that makes the subrogation right a nullity wrongful cases, and we a allow double recovery.
Justice BAER dissenting.
Decedent John Gillette was
employed as
teacher at Parker
Middle School. While
acting
the course and scope of
employment
chaperone
as a
at an eighth grade graduation
dance, Decedent
student,
was shot and
killed
A.W. A.W.
also
injured
student,
shot and
another
J.T. Decedent was
wife,
survived
Appellee
Ms.
and their three
children. Appellant Utica National Insurance
Group
*12
compensation
workers’
provider for the school district where
Decedent worked and was killed. Following Decedent’s
death,
paid
Utica
fatal claim benefits to Ms.
in
Gillette
the
$167,934.
amount of
Ms.
her own
and as
estate,
executor of Decedent’s
commenced a wrongful death
against
lawsuit
and
parents,
A.W.
which was consolidated
with the personal injury
brought
lawsuit
by J.T.1 Ms. Gillette
wrongful
1. A
compensation
death action is intended to secure
to certain
relatives of decedent and
wrongful
sum recovered in
death action
does not become an asset of decedent’s estate.
v. Southeastern
Tulewicz
Pennsylvania Transp. Authority,
(1992);
529 Pa.
and J.T. to settle $300,000, the the insurance limit of Wurst’s homeowner’s settlement, the Ms. Gillette policy. proposed Under would $288,000 remaining $12,000. and would receive the receive J.T. that Death Statute mandates Penn- Pennsylvania’s Wrongful be used to determine sylvania’s intestacy scheme distribution $288,000 received Ms. Gillette. See of the Pa.C.S. award 8301(b). costs, After fees and if payment counsel Ms. share, intestate she had her accepted spousal $109,493.77,and each Decedent’s chil- have received three $26,497.93.2 Gillette, however, have dren would received Ms. Pennsylvania her law disclaim the exercised as the surviving of the settlement funds allotted to her portion scheme, $12,000 intestacy exception with the spouse in the expenses, resulting for Decedent’s funeral balance to Decedent’s her spousal share to distributed children. parties approve the court to this day petitioned
The intervene, settlement, petition asserting Utica filed a subro- settlement, rights against Ms. Gillette’s share of gation $167,934 in fatal seeking portion recover a claim following it death. trial paid benefits to her Decedent’s The intervene, then permitted approved court Utica settlement, jurisdiction it lacked ruling that resolve upholding issue Utica and Ms. Gil- presented her share settlement lette’s disclaim of the funds. affirmed, nothing prevents Superior finding Court beneficiary disclaiming proceeds from an intestate interest long death action so as the disclaimer is from applicable statutory out in law.3 carried accordance with action, pertinent my simplicity, I will nor is it dissent. For refer to plaintiff/appellee Ms. Gillette. as decedent, surviving are of the all of whom are If there issue issue of surviving spouse, surviving spouse share the intestate of a the first $30,000, plus estate. one-half of the balance of the intestate See 20 2102(3). question subrogation rights trial court that the Utica's 3. The believed solely jurisdiction system, within workers’ *13 requiring compensation judge. Utica to raise the issue before a workers’ Courts, rea- and Superior the trial Majority The reverses Ms. Gillette to the amount subrogated that Utica is not soning a received, right had to the share that Ms. Gillette actually but below, because, explained I as respectfully dissent receive. Ms. Gil- consequences this fails to consider analysis under 20 Pa.C.S. exercise of her to disclaim right lette’s 42of P.S. plain language § 6201 as enunciated clearly 6205(b) (these Probate, Es- Pennsylvania’s are sections Code”). In Code, “PEF Fiduciaries hereinafter tates and below, Ms. statutory language, quoted accord this when with she proceeds, her to the settlement right Gillette disclaimed be treated as requiring a fiction that she triggered legal Thus, from the proceeds Decedent. having predeceased children, to Decedent’s directly death action wrongful went Accordingly, had to them. any right and Ms. Gillette never Ms. it its results on majority hinges is incorrect when death alleged right proceeds. to receive the Gillette’s existed, nothing there As that never Utica against. subrogate
The a brought by action Ms. Gillette was The dam- provides action. Statute to such action “shall be distribut- ages pursuant recovered an in the take the proportion they ed to the beneficiaries would intestacy estate in the personal of the decedent case ” 42 person.... to creditors of the deceased liability without 8301(b). scheme, intestacy which Pennsylvania’s Code, for a found in the PEF describes the intestate share further a surviving spouse, provides see 20 Pa.C.S. disclaim, as follows: Right § 6201. to disclaim
A have person property to whom an interest means, including beneficiary devolved whatever a under will, power a the exercise of a appointee joint appointment, person by intestacy, entitled to take of an inter survivorship, tenant with a donee vivos Superior to rule on the trial Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction light holding accept court's refusal to of its that Ms. prevailed on the merits. *14 560
transfer, a donee under a contract third-party beneficiary beneficiaries of life (including annuity policies insurance and and pension, profit-sharing employee and other benefit interest, and a to a plans), person may entitled disclaimed it in part by disclaim whole or in written disclaimer.... § 6201. PEF Pa.C.S. The Code also defines the effect of a disclaimer:
§ 6205. Effect of disclaimer (a) In general. purposes disclaimer relates back for all —A to the date of the death of the decedent....
(b) Rights of other a testator donor parties. or has —Unless shall, provided for another the disclaimer disposition, of the purposes determining rights parties, of other be to the the equivalent having disclaimant’s died before dece- dent in the case of a or intestacy.... devolution will § 20 Pa.C.S. 6205.
This case is about the statutory right tension between this and disclaim the effect thereof under Sections 6201 and 6205, and the provision Compensation Workers’ Act in upon that Utica relies seeking subrogate against Ms. Gillette’s share of the death wrongful proceeds: Subrogation employer rights employee
§ of of against persons; employer third or insur- paid prior er to amount to award the compensable injury Where is caused whole or in part the act or party, omission a third shall employer subrogated employe, personal representative, dependents, his estate or his such party third to the extent of the compensation payable article by employer.... this § 671. The before us is the question impact P.S. of a disclaimer of her beneficiary’s proceeds intestate share of from a death action on an insurance carrier’s subrogation. legislature unique statutory has created scheme in
the case of the distribution of proceeds, prem- 8801(b). intestacy ised distribution. upon See Pa.C.S. specifically includes the governing intestacy The law disclaim, the disclaimant as 20 Pa.C.S. treats 6205(b).4 having predeceased decedent. facts of dispute There is no that the this case establish a valid beyond plain Ms. Gillette. need not look disclaimer We 6205 to this language of Section determine effect of result clear proper disclaimer and this case. The 6205(a) that the meaning parties of Section status the effect of the are fixed disclaimer time of death, regardless decedent’s when the actually disclaimer is *15 Estate, 170, 339, made. See In re Bute’s 355 Pa. 49 341 A.2d (“When (1946) a devise is renounced the renunciation will relate back the gift moment when the was and made effect, it the taking from ever devisee prevent leaving without an interest in the and without in property liability connection McCutcheon, therewith.”); In re Estate 699 746 A.2d of (Pa.Super.1997) (holding that because a disclaimer relates death, the back the decedent’s status of in chain parties the death, of succession as of of regard- are established the time made). less of when the disclaimer is In a relating addition to death, of disclaimer back the date the decedent’s Section 6205(b) the of establishes time death of the as disclaimant Cappy, concurring opinion, 4. Mr. Chief in Justice fiction invokes the having predeceased that a disclaimant is treated as the decedent for disclaimer, purposes hypothesizes truly of and that if Ms. Gillette had Decedent, predeceased then Decedent's three children would have hypothetical, received fatal claim benefits. Under the Gil- where Ms. Decedent, predeceased lette brought the children also would have the wrongful wrongful death action and the received death Be- award. recipients wrongful cause the of the claim fatal benefit and the death scenario, award would the same in this the that concurrence reasons right subrogation against Utica would have a then of the three children. Respectfully, hypothetical premised improper expansion the is on the of legal 6205(b) the fiction created 20 Pa.C.S. to fatal claim benefits paid Compensation applies only under the Workers' Act. The fiction in property the context of the devolution of after exercise of a disclaimer apply paid under the PEF Code. It does to benefits the under Thus, Compensation Legislature's Workers’ Act. the creation the predeceased fiction that the disclaimant purposes the decedent for the impact legal reality PEF Code does or alter the and factual that Ms. recipient Gillette the fatal claim benefits the and, Compensation Workers' these Act. As benefits went to Ms. Gillette disclaimer, wrongful proceeds virtue of her death went to the children, upon faulty premises. the concurrence is constructed a lan- Applying plain decedent. prior death case to the fiction that at of Section 6205 this leads guage death, predeceased Ms. Gillette had the time Decedent’s Therefore, she predeceased, because she is treated as him. distribution of the purposes determining not exist for does exist, no Because she does not she has death award. wrongful in death distributed to nor interest award or legal right As Ms. had no Decedent’s children.5 award, no to or interest to in Utica can have interest it either. chose contest noteworthy wrong
It is also
that Utica
a
filing
wrong
petition
ful death award
intervene
precedent
death action. Under Commonwealth Court
ful
Act,
when
claimant
applying
Compensation
Workers’
benefits,
also
asserts
entitled workers’
injury,
the work-related
upon
action based
no
or
entirely separate
are
and have
relation
proceedings
two
one another unless and until the claimant receives
impact upon
party
Creighan
or settlement
the third
action.
award
(Mellon
Pa.Cmwlth.620,
A.2d
Corp.),
Stuart
W.C.A.B.
(1993).
occurs, then,
then, does
only
When
into
Id.
come
subrogation provision,
play.
P.S.
case,
this
is not
In the context of
Utica’s
*16
an
or
actually
until Ms. Gillette
receives
award
implicated
law,
not,
Ms.
does
as a matter of
settlement. Because
any
interest in
that she
any right
part
or
of
award
have
disclaimed,
simply
of
not
right
subrogation
implicat-
Utica’s
is
subrogation
right
against
third-party
a
a
In order to
of
5.
establish
recovery,
employer must
fund to
it seeks
demonstrate that the
which
subrogation
compensable injury for
em-
was for the same
which the
Compensation
Sharkey
ployer
Act.
v.
is liable under
Workers’
Hardware),
(Pa.Cmwlth.Ct.
(Sharkey's
W.C.A.B.
American
A.2d
1999).
purposes
of the existence of Ms. Gillette for
of the fatal
Because
benefits,
right
had no
their
recover
Decedent's children
own to
claim
Greenville,
11,
Borough
claim benefits. See Anderson v.
442 Pa.
fatal
(1971).
paid
The fatal claim benefits were therefore
Finally, observe if all conceivable to most expansive right disclaim unliqui- the disclaimant has excessive beneficiaries. Whether here, debtor, or, bills, like judgment credit card is a dated decided, has legislature subject subrogation, that the satisfaction public policy, as a matter sound majority implic- through debt can be disclaimer. avoided the disclaimer will itly limits this situations where However, for the that is result tax benefits disclaimant. because the legislature Simply
what has said. not mean that one disclaim is often used to avoid taxes does reason, including defeating cannot disclaim for other Indeed, here. happened claims of creditors. that is what has I dissent. Accordingly, A.2d SEETON, Appellant
Johnna COMMISSION, Appellee. PENNSYLVANIA GAME Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 2005.
Decided Dec.