*1 Krаmer in his expressed by Judge cogent dissenting opinion applicable today: in that case is equally I [Fjollowing reasoning majority, believe it argue for me to relatively easy would be almost teachers’ could everything touching upon employment be managerial a matter of “inherent argued policy”. be If of the tack taken majority that is the result managerial what is meant “inherent analyzing policy”, legislative then I intent of Act 195 will have believe been thwarted.
Quoted opinion appeal, in the on approval majority with 262, 494, 7, n. 7. 504 n. reasons, hold, I as a matter of foregoing
For the would law, that the Board erred in its determination that proper subject mandatory caseload is not collective I under and would reinstate thе bargaining Section August Board’s Decision and Order of 1979. Nisi Kline, Appellants, William B. KLINE and Renee Verner, COMPANY, Arden H. Arden H. ARDEN H. VERNER Painters, Company, H. Verner Inc. and Arden Verner t/a Inc., Appellees. Inc. Painters and t/a Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Sept. Submitted 1983.
Decided Dec. evidence had been taken. I conclusion and since no additional While itself, agree majority ability has the to reverse with the that the Board 1101.1501, see section nevertheless the Board’s retreat seriously strong position August from its undermines “exрertise” value of the Board’s on this issue and further demonstrates impropriety granting any deference to the Board’s determina- tion of conclusions of law. *2 Kovalchick, Arnold, Thomas A. for appellants. Buckler, Eck,
Meyer, Darragh, Bebenek Fred C. Tre- & nor, Pittsburgh, Louis C. Long, appellee. C.J., ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN,
Before and FLAHER- jj. TY, McDermott, zappala, hutchinson OPINION McDERMOTT,Justice.
Appellant, painter, in the course of injured He from a employment. suffering pelvic fell ladder injuries *3 impotent. that rendered him He for and applied received Comрensation Workmen’s benefits for the month he was by disabled. Denied benefits the Compensation Workmen’s resulting Board for the impotency, against he filed suit employer, alleging negligent by conduct a fellow employee as the cause of granted the The trial injury. court summa judgment ry upon appeal Court, Superior 307 573, 1035, Pa.Super. unanimously affirmed. agree. We
The provides Act1 the exclu- means by sive which a covered can recover against an employer injury for of the course his employ- ment. Appellant contended he is entitled maintain an against action his employer because his injury not cover- ed workmen’s compensation. He argued the exclu- sivity provision of Act, the Workmen’s Compensation 77 § 481(a) I, Article offends Section 11 of the Pennsylva- nia Constitution guaranteeing that all have should access to the courts to remedy wrongs. seq., seq.,
1. Act of June et 1 et art. 1 101 as amended. 254 Co., 402 Pa. A.2d 31 166
In v. Powell Coal Scott C.E. recovery clause (1960) exclusivity that the denied wе held resulting of taste and injury an for loss F.2d 457 Corp., In v. Allied Chemical smell. Hartwell Circuit, Cir.1972), Pennsylvania (3rd applying the Third law, disfigurement, not covered held that remedy against employer. no an provided compensation, its intent and reading of plain with a Consistent is the held that workmen’s we have purpose, injuries. related remedy job exclusive the constitutionali- we not hitherto addressed While have clause, perimeter have touched the exclusivity we ty question. as little room for to leave analоgous with cases so (1975), 464 Pa. Sheppard, In v. Singer him deprived Fault Act2 argued the No appellant when courts, “Nothing to the we held that right access of his of I, from extin prevents legislature in Article Section A.2d at 464 Pa. at of action.” guishing cause Hospitаl Philadelphia, In Parker v. Children’s of (1978), delaying A.2d 932 we held that by arbitration was constitutional jury to trial by access cause of to abolish a legislature power because preliminary to create a power included certainly action In Inс. v. Arm remedy. Storage, Freezer administrative (1978), cited we strong Cork that no one “has a vested proposition for the supra, Singer, body of an immutable in the existence right continued con practical contrary The result of a negligence lаw.... the law in the face of stagnation clusion would be supra, Singer Sheppard, conditions.” changing societal *4 399, A.3d at Pa. at 346 464 488 Corp., & Steel Laughlin
In Tsarnas v. Jones of the a similar (1980) provision we addressed Act, immunizing from employers We said parties. third or contribution actions indemnity to rеstrict legislation this kind of “purpose seq. July Art. 1 et No. 2. Act of seq. et 1009.101 available to an remedy employee against employer compensation, to and to close to the and employee, to third in parties, any recourse tort fоr negli- 488 Pa. at gence.” A.2d at 1097. change,
To alter or remedy abolish a lies within the power legislature instances, and of the wisdom and some the courts. Access to a tribunal is not denied when the jurisdiction tribunal has no to entertain either the claim or remedy. Time and require circumstances new remedies adjust new unforeseen losses and conditions. To so, do facets of the society often require new immunities or larger responsibility, as the legislature may determine. The compensatiоn workmen’s deprived law has some rights benefits, exchange some, for surer immunized to make possible resources to benefit many, who where heretofore possible without or practical remedies.
Appellant Lunch, cites Dolan v. Linton’s (1959). The analogy inapposite simply because the law does not address losses incurred by intentional injury by employ er. We said there only that a right denial of of access to the courts for existing common law actions might violate I, Article Seсtion 11 without some providing statutory case, The remedy. however, instant is very different. Here, the injury suffered was clearly within the scope of the Act and the appellant was fully compensated under the Act. As this Dolan, Court stated in substituted “[T]he remedy need not be the same.” As the Dolan decision rested on comfortably the language the discus sion of possible I, effect of Article dicta, Section 11 was dicta that was subsequently repudiated. See, Freezer Stor age, Inc. v. Cork Armstrong supra, 476 Pa. аt (“To A.2d at 721. the extent the dictum therein suggests legislature that the may never abolish a judicially recognized action, cause of it.”) we decline to follow
The appellants have failed to overcome the presump tion that the exclusivity clause was constitutional. Lattan-
256 Review, Board 461 Compensation Unemployment
zio v. (1975). Pa. analogy
The
an
between
appellant
attempts
also
Occupational
and the
Compensation Act
the Workmen’s
against
This
has allowed tort actions
Diseases Act.3
Court
specifically
a
in cases where
disease was not
an
statute,
occupational
barring
in
disease
while
out
the
set
compensa
litigation
claims covered
such
Co.,
Pa.
401
v.
485
tion. Boniecke McGraw-Edison
(1979);
Corp.,
Steel
A.2d 345
Greer v. United States
(1977).
appellant argues
Thе
380 A.2d
Pa.
unfair
fundamentally
a
alleged
this
contradiction works
definitional distinctions
paradox.
analyzing
In
Occupational
analogy collapses.
Acts the
Under
two
occupational
Act,
enumerated
only
specifically
Diseases
tеst, 77
pass
three-part
which
a
disease
diseases
§ 1208,
and tort
statutory
benefits for
bring
does
intend
for the
Act
not
bar
immunity
employer;
the Act.
diseases not covered
litigation involving
tort
hand,
Act,
Compensation
on the other
cov
The Workmen’s
exclusivity
аnd the
clause bars tort
ers “all injuries,”
This
from
work-related
analo
flowing
any
injury.
actions
rejected in Hartwell v. Allied Chemical
was raised and
gy
men’s seq. No. 101 et 1201 et Act of June 284 § seq. as amеnded. compensation, barring exclusive avenue of actions at com- employer. mon law an *6 reasons, Superior
For these the decision of the Court is affirmed.
NIX, J., files a concurring opinion.
LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion. Justice,
NIX, concurring. I question an of the instant analysis case which frames the issue as being injury whether the is covered under the (Act). Compensation Workmen’s Act Act of June amended, as In seq. et my judgment, the complaint goes instant to the of adequacy legislative remedial in provision allowed cases such as I agree this. with the that the majority Superior Court decision should be affirmed.
Here, the Aсt including clause, its exclusivity 77 P.S. § 481(a), clearly applicable to the instant injury. The pelvic injuries during were sustained a fall which occurred within the course of the employment. During the time that appellant was disabled as result of the in injury question, he fact did apply for and did receive benefits. The i.e., matter in controversy, impotence, resultant is not an independent injury but rather a residual consequence of the initial injury.
The Act recognizes losses of this nature provides for them pursuant 306(b), to seсtion 512. Under 306(b), section this would as a clearly qualify permanent partial disability. Scott Powell Coal (1960). However, compensation since under this section is computed upon the loss of weekly earnings result- condition, ing from the appellant who has not sustained a loss of earnings his as a result of the impotence does not qualify under that section. See Scott v. Co., supra. Powell Coal permanent claimant who has suffered a partial dis-
[A] ability, smell, such as the loss of the senses of taste and body, any part
or the loss the use functional of of his result of accident suffered in the course as a an recover for loss under employment, still may receive an but he cannot if in excess of his earnings equal were award accident, added). earnings (Emphasis weekly before Id., Pa. at A.2d at 33. provided by and extent of the remedy
The nature the sound Assembly in a remedial statute is within General That should not be legislature. discretion judgment urged recogni- branch. The upon judicial intruded would, fаct, a common law cause action tion of in- type impermissible of unwarranted and constitute trusion.
LARSEN, Justice, dissenting. against suit disagree appellant’s
I of Com- provision the Workmen’s by exclusivity barred I dissent. Accordingly, Act. pensation Pennsylvania Section 11 of the Constitution Article for an open, every “All and man courts shall be states by remedy him in ... shall have person done his ... injury law____” Thus, compensation, of due course employers to their employees limits the sue rights which exist course of cаn employment, incurred injuries for empowers Constitution also Pennsylvania only because action em- to certain causes of legislature abolish and laws that to enact employers their ployees to em- reasonable employers pay require employment. in the course their are injured who ployees Const, §3, art. 18. empower not However, does Article Section cause employee’s laws that abolish an to enact legislature statutory some concurrently providing action without Lunch, Liton’s remedy. Dolan v. action is appellant’s cause of (1959). Consequently, if the Act only Act the Workmen’s
barred appellant’s injury. some for remedy provides The Act three provides classifications of cоmpensation for employees injured during course of their employment: § 1) 511; 2) total disability, partial disability, 77 P.S. 512; 3) loss, specific case, 513. In this appellant’s since injury has no effect on his ability work, he is not entitled to total partial disability benefits under addition, the Act. In since appellant’s is not injury listed in specific loss section of the he is not entitled to specific benefits a loss.
Thus, it is clear that although appellant has suffered a serious permanent injury namely, permanent impotencе— —
the Act deprives appellant of both a forum for redress and remedy, violation of Article Section of the Penn- sylvania Constitution.
I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and remand this case for trial.
Philip ROTHMAN Fillette, Appellants. Gloria FILLETTE and Ronald Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct.
Decided Dec.