Huskins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

471 A.2d 114, 80 Pa. Commw. 161, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1182
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 7, 1984
DocketAppeal, No. 254 C.D. 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 471 A.2d 114 (Huskins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Huskins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 471 A.2d 114, 80 Pa. Commw. 161, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1182 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Raymond T. Hoskins (claimant) appeals here an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which reversed a referee’s decision that the, claimant was entitled to commutation of benefits and ordered continued payments on a weekly basis.

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1980 and has been receiving weekly benefits for total disability. He requested a commutation of benefits from the referee, pursuant to Section 412 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §791,1 so that he could build a home on a lot he owned in Johnson County, Tennessee. In the event that further occurences might lower the employer’s insurance carrier’s liability, the claimant offered the insurance carrier a first mortgage2 on the property, and 'the ref[163]*163eree ruled that the mortgage was sufficient .and awarded commutation. The Board held on ¡appeal by the insurance carrier, as .a matter .of law, that the mortgage would not ¡adequately protect the insurance carrier’s rights, and .reversed the referee. The claimant then filed the instant ¡appeal.

[164]*164The issues raised here are ¡purely matters ,of law: 1) Is the mortgage offered by the claimant ¡sufficient indemnity to ¡safeguard the insurance carrier’s rights? ¡Section 316 ¡of the Act, 77 P.:S. §604, and, 2) Did the Board abuse its discretion in not awarding commutation? Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Montrose, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 97, 340 A.2d 605 (1975).

The Board held that the mortgage was insufficient in that “it does not take into account the possible depredation ¡of the asset during ¡the course of the lif e of the claimant and his wife and because it does not necessarily allow the payment of the unused balance of the lump ,sum award at the time of claimant’¡s death,” ¡and we agree. In addition to the ¡shortcomings noted, the mortgage does not allow for ¡any interest until the death of the claimant ¡and only then is it fixed ¡at “the prevailing mortgage interest rate in the ¡Community in which the property is located on the date of death, ¡such Interest Rate being fixed during the remaining term of the mortgage. ’ ’ "When the mortgage terms are read carefully and the possibilities of future events considered, it is clear that the mortgage is not adequate to ¡protect against future loss as is required. See Garrity v. Bituco Mfg. & Chemical Co., 277 Pa. 88, 120 A. 764 (1923). Moreover, as ¡one of the leading commentators in ibis field has stated, commutations are rarely granted, because they ¡seem to run contrary to the clear intent of the Act that a regular income, payable in installments over a long period, ¡should be [165]*165¡provided to ¡the injured .worker. 1 A. Barbieri, Pennsylvania Workmen’is Compensation and Occupational Disease §5.43 (1975); Montrose, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 100, n. 3, 340 A.2d at 607, n. 3. And this .consideration may also have been persuasive here.

The Board has ¡discretion in these matters, id., and we cannot find any abuse of that ‘discretion here. We will, therefore, ¡affirm the Board’s order.

Order

And Now, this 7th day ¡of February, 1984, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

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

Related

In re Petition to Transfer Structured Settlement Payment Rights of Curto
67 Pa. D. & C.4th 65 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 2004)
Christopher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
793 A.2d 991 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Linko v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
621 A.2d 1188 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Shaffer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
588 A.2d 1029 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Glinka V.Workmens Compensation Appeal Board
521 A.2d 503 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 A.2d 114, 80 Pa. Commw. 161, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huskins-v-workmens-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-1984.