Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth

437 A.2d 771, 62 Pa. Commw. 424, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1870
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 17, 1981
DocketAppeal, No. 2895 C.D. 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 437 A.2d 771 (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth) 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
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth, 437 A.2d 771, 62 Pa. Commw. 424, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1870 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (J & L), the employer has appealed the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board’s affirmance of a referee’s decision [426]*426awarding compensation to a widow. The referee found that the decedent, Eddie Lee West, employed by J & L from May 1957 to September 1974, died as a result of an occupational disease1 caused by exposure to hazardous substances during the course of that employment. The referee awarded compensation to respondent, the widow, beginning February 27, 1975, decedent’s date of death, with interest on deferred payments of compensation pursuant to Section 406.1 of The Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act (Act).2

The respondent filed her fatal claim petition on February 16, 1978, alleging that notice of death had been communicated to the employer by decedent’s undertaker on February 28, 1975. J & L, denying receipt of such notice, contends that there was no proof of notice and notes that the referee made no finding as to the date of notice. Hence, J & L asserts that the first notice of claim was February 16, 1978, the date the respondent filed her fatal claim petition, more than two years and eleven months after death.

This appeal presents three issues: Is respondent’s claim barred under Section 311 of the Act?3 If the claim is not barred, is the respondent entitled to benefits for the period after decedent’s death which preceded any notice to petitioner-employer? If respondent can recover benefits calculated from the date of death, is she also entitled to interest on benefits accrued before notice to petitioner-employer?

J & L contends that the Section 311 notice requirement applies to death claims as well as to injury claims [427]*427for lifetime benefits.4 If tbe 120 day limitation applies to death claims, and if J & L did not in fact receive notice until the claim petition was filed, the respondent’s claim would be barred.

We decided the question of whether Section 311 notice requirements are controlling in death claims in Duquesne Light Comapny v. Gurick, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 150, 405 A.2d 1358 (1979), a case which also involved a death resulting from occupational disease.

In Gurick, Judge DiSalle said:

Petitioner contends that claimant should have been precluded from receiving compensation since she failed to notify Petitioner of her husband’s death within 120 days thereafter pursuant to Section 311. The obvious fallacy of this argument is that Section 311 has no applicability to fatal claim petitioners. Section 311 speaks only in terms of giving notice of ‘injury’ ... On the other hand, Section 315 refers specifically to claims as a result of ‘death.’

After thus indicating that injury in Section 311 refers to injury resulting in disability, but not death, Gurick holds that the notice limitation for death claims is in Section 315, which states:

[428]*428In cases of death all claims for compensation shall be forever barred . . . unless, within three years after death, one of the parties shall have filed a petition...

The term “claims” in Section 315 embraces rights to both death and disability compensation under the Act.

. Confusion arises because the Act uses the term “injury” in two ways: (1) as the death or disability-causing event or occurrence and (2) as a disability resulting from such an event. The 1972 amendments to the Act5 contribute to interpretation problems because they expand the term “injury” to include occupational disease;6 thus, “injury” now embraces occupational disease when it is used to mean either an event or resulting condition. Section 301(c) of the Act7 defines “injury” as follows:

Subsection (1):

The terms ‘injury’ and ‘personal injury,’ as used in this act, shall be construed to mean an injury to an employe . . . arising in the course of his employment and related thereto, and such disease as naturally results from the injury ... wherever death is mentioned as a cause for compensation under this act, it shall mean only death resulting from such injury...

Subsection (2):

The terms ‘injury,’ ‘personal injury,’ and ‘injury arising in the course of his employment,’ as used in this act, shall include, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, occupational disease . . . Provided, That whenever occupational disease is the basis for compensation, [429]*429for disability or death under this act, it shall apply only to disability or death resulting from such disease. . . (Footnote omitted, emphasis added.)

On the basis of this language, the term “injury,” when used in cases of occupational disease to mean a resulting condition, can include both disability and death. Although that connotation may be appropriate in some contexts in the Act, it does not affect the result this court reached in Gurich with respect to Sections 311 and 315. The clear meaning of the last sentences of both sections is controlling:

The term ‘injury’ in this section means, in cases of occupational disease, disability resulting from occupational disease. (Emphasis added.)

Obviously, disability does not include death; disability refers to conditions which give rise to lifetime benefits. Thus, the term injury in Sections 311 and 315 is expressly qualified so as not to exclude death resulting from an occupational disease. Therefore, because respondent filed her petition within the three year period in Section 315, we find that the board acted properly in holding respondent’s claim was not barred.

With respect to the second issue, J & L argues that, even if respondent’s claim is compensable, compensation should not accrue until the employer has either notice or knowledge of the claim. To support this view, petitioner relies on language in Section 406.1 of the Act :8

. . . The first installment of compensation shall be paid not later than the twenty first day after the employer has notice or knowledge of the employe’s disability. . . (Emphasis added.)

[430]*430As we have already observed, “disability,” as used in the Act, does not include death. Therefore, absent a clear indication to the contrary, the twenty-one day notice provision of Section 406.1 does not apply to death claims.

Although section 311 of the Act also contains a twenty-one day notice provision,9 the holding in Gurick, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 154, 405 A.2d at 1359-60, that Section 311 has no applicability to death claims, obviously applies to the twenty-one day provision as well as the 120 day provision.10

The remaining issue is whether respondent is entitled to interest on the benefits which accrued between decedent’s date of death and the time J & L received notice of the claim.

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

Related

Johnakin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
806 A.2d 950 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Shoemaker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
604 A.2d 1145 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Martin v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
572 A.2d 1307 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
437 A.2d 771, 62 Pa. Commw. 424, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-laughlin-steel-corp-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1981.