Strange v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Strange v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

812 A.2d 772, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 987, 2002 WL 31778390

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 13, 2002

DocketNo. 1328 C.D. 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 812 A.2d 772 (Strange v. Workers' 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

Strange v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 812 A.2d 772, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 987, 2002 WL 31778390 (Pa. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION BY

President Judge COLINS.

J. Douglas Strange petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge that granted Strange’s claim petition but limited his benefits pursuant to Section 308.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act ¹, 77 P.S. § 565. We affirm the Board.

Strange was hired by the Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball Club as a utility infielder in November of 1997 under a two-year contract at a salary of $550,000,00 per year. He sustained an injury to his right elbow on April 1, 1999 that resulted in disability commencing on October 1, 1999. The parties entered into an agreement by which Strange would be paid benefits at the maximum rate allowable in 1999, $588 per week, based on an average weekly wage of $9,615.38. Among other provisions not relevant to our inquiry, the agreement specifically reserved to Strange the right to challenge the constitutionality of Section 308.1(e) of the Act, which defines “wages of the injured employee” in Section 306(b) of the Act for the purpose of computing partial disability benefits for certain highly paid professional athletes, and only that small group, as two times the statewide weekly average wage.

The question we are asked to determine is whether Section 308.1 of the Act violates the protections guaranteed by the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and of the United States.²

This Court recently decided the case of Lyons v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.), 803 A.2d 857 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). There is no substantive difference between the facts in Lyons and those before us in this case. The law and the question presented in Lyons are the same as the law and the question presented here. We will, therefore, defer to and rely on our earlier, published decision in Lyons rather than repeat the analysis here.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of December 2002, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in this matter is affirmed.

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

OPINION BY

President Judge COLINS.

J. Douglas Strange petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge that granted Strange’s claim petition but limited his benefits pursuant to Section 308.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act ¹, 77 P.S. § 565. We affirm the Board.

Strange was hired by the Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball Club as a utility infielder in November of 1997 under a two-year contract at a salary of $550,000,00 per year. He sustained an injury to his right elbow on April 1, 1999 that resulted in disability commencing on October 1, 1999. The parties entered into an agreement by which Strange would be paid benefits at the maximum rate allowable in 1999, $588 per week, based on an average weekly wage of $9,615.38. Among other provisions not relevant to our inquiry, the agreement specifically reserved to Strange the right to challenge the constitutionality of Section 308.1(e) of the Act, which defines “wages of the injured employee” in Section 306(b) of the Act for the purpose of computing partial disability benefits for certain highly paid professional athletes, and only that small group, as two times the statewide weekly average wage.

The question we are asked to determine is whether Section 308.1 of the Act violates the protections guaranteed by the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and of the United States.²

This Court recently decided the case of Lyons v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.), 803 A.2d 857 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). There is no substantive difference between the facts in Lyons and those before us in this case. The law and the question presented in Lyons are the same as the law and the question presented here. We will, therefore, defer to and rely on our earlier, published decision in Lyons rather than repeat the analysis here.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of December 2002, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in this matter is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 A.2d 772, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 987, 2002 WL 31778390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strange-v-workers-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack