Hostler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

44 A.3d 26, 615 Pa. 502, 2012 WL 1521953, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1042
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 2, 2012
Docket866 MAL 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.3d 26 (Hostler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hostler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 44 A.3d 26, 615 Pa. 502, 2012 WL 1521953, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1042 (Pa. 2012).

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s Order that reversed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board order is VACATED, and the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s calculation of petitioner’s average weekly wage, is REINSTATED. The WCJ did not err in finding that petitioner did not maintain a continuous employment relationship with Employer, as petitioner did not “retain[ ] significant rights/accoutrements of employment” with Employer. Contrast Reifsnyder v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dana Corporation), 584 Pa.341, 883 A.2d 537, 547 (2005) (although injured employees were subject to work-related layoffs for business/economic reasons, these claimants “nevertheless maintained continuous employment relationships with Employer[.] ... [I]n those down times where layoffs occurred, [pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement, cjlaimants retained significant rights/accoutrements of employment, such as plant seniority, healthcare and sick leave benefits, and employer contributions to their retirement accounts.”). Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court’s [503]*503calculation of petitioner’s average weekly wage under 77 P.S. § 582(d) was erroneous and the WCJ’s alternate calculation of petitioner’s average weekly wage, which was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, was correct. The WCJ’s alternate calculation is necessary to fairly assess claimant’s earnings, Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Snyder, Jr.), 575 Pa.66, 834 A.2d 524 (2003), and advances the humanitarian purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act, id., and the purpose of Section 582 — to accurately capture economic reality when calculating claimant’s average weekly wage. Reifsnyder, 883 A.2d at 548.

Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hostler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
44 A.3d 26 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A.3d 26, 615 Pa. 502, 2012 WL 1521953, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hostler-v-workers-compensation-appeal-board-pa-2012.