Case Title: Reifsnyder, Remp & Hoffa v. WCAB (Dana Corporation) (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-152-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JEFFREY REIFSNYDER, DENNIS REMP and RICHARD HOFFA v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (DANA CORPORATION), APPEAL OF: DANA CORPORATION : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 4, 5 & 6 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on April 23, 2003, at Nos. 780 CD 2002, 781 CD 2002 and 782 CD 2002, reversing the orders of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board 826 A.2d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) ARGUED: October 18, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: September 28, 2005 I join the thorough and well-reasoned majority opinion reversing the decision of the Commonwealth Court and holding that Section 309(d) controls the computation of AWW in this case. I write separately only to distance myself respectfully from the majority’s conclusion that unemployment compensation benefits should not be included in the computation of an employee’s AWW under Section 309(d) where an employee’s relationship with an employer involves periodic layoffs. Maj. Op. at 18-19. Notwithstanding that the parties could have directly raised, briefed and argued this issue explicitly before this Court, they have not. Therefore, I believe it would be more prudent to delay consideration of this difficult issue until a party raises it directly and the Court has the benefit of focused advocacy concerning whether inclusion of the unemployment [J-152-2004] - 2 compensation benefits in the AWW would provide a more “accurate measure of a worker’s earnings history and earning capacity.” Maj. Op. at 18-19. In all other respects, I join the erudite majority opinion. Mr. Chief Justice Cappy, Mr. Justice Nigro and Madame Justice Newman join this concurring opinion.