Case Title: Gardner v. WCAB (Genesis Health Ventures) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Rider) (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-196A/B-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, JJ. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES), Appellant v. BARBARA GARDNER, Appellee __________________________________ WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LEROY RIDER), Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : __ : : : : : : : : : : No. 14 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on January 15, 2003, at 1923 CD 2002, reversing the Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered on August 1, 2002, at A01-3263 ARGUED: December 2, 2004 __________________________________ No. 103 MAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered December 9, 2003, at 1146 CD 2003, reversing the Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered May 12, 2003, at A02-1965 ARGUED: December 2, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO Decided: December 28, 2005 I agree with the majority's dispositions in both the Gardner and Rider cases. Moreover, specifically with respect to the Gardner case, I agree with the majority that an insurer must request an impairment rating evaluation ("IRE") within sixty days after an employee has received total disability compensation for a period of 104 weeks if the insurer wants to modify the employee's benefits pursuant to 77 P.S. §§ 511.2(1)-(2). I also agree that this interpretation of the statute is clear based on the General Assembly's use of the [J-196A/B-2004] - 2 word "shall" when describing the manner in which an insurer must request an IRE. See 77 P.S. § 511.2(1). However, unlike the majority, I do not believe that the meaning of the word "shall" is ambiguous. Rather, in accordance with this Court's decision in Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp., 696 A.2d 148 (Pa. 1997), I believe that the word "shall" clearly means that something is mandatory. See id. at 204 ("By definition, "shall" is mandatory."). Thus, I see no need to look beyond the plain language of 77 P.S. § 511.2(1) to determine what the General Assembly meant by using the word "shall" in that statute. See 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(b) ("When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.").