Case Title: Kramer v. WCAB (Rite Aid Corporation) (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

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

Document:
[J-152-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DENISE KRAMER v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RITE AID CORPORATION) APPEAL OF: RITE AID CORPORATION DENISE KRAMER, Appellant v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RITE AID CORPORATION), Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 51 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 2/22/02 at No. 1718 CD 2001 which reversed the Decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board dated 6/26/01 at No. A00- 0350 No. 52 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 2/22/02 at No. 1718 CD 2001 which reversed the Decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board dated 6/26/01 at No. A00- 0350 ARGUED: December 2, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR Decided: September 28, 2005 I join the majority opinion, except in two respects. First, I agree with Claimant that it is not wholly apt to characterize the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits and a severance, negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement, as a double benefit or [J-152-2003] - 2 recovery, particularly in light of the legislative compromise between loss-spreading and insulation of employers from tort liability on which the workers’ compensation system is premised. See Lewis v. School Dist. of Phila., 517 Pa. 461, 471-72, 538 A.2d 862, 867 (1988). Instead, I view Section 204(a) as coordinating an employer’s existing contractual obligations with its liability arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act, while ensuring that a claimant receives benefits for the reduction in earning capacity attributable to the work-related injury. Second, I differ with the majority opinion to the extent that it can be interpreted as foreclosing an equal protection claim on the basis that no classification is present, because the pertinent statutory language does not specifically address the class of non- injured workers. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 21. Cf. Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 105 S. Ct. 2862 (1985) (holding that a state tax exemption statute that applies only to veterans living in the state before a specified date violated equal protection principles). Nonetheless, I agree with the majority’s application of the rational basis test to Section 204(a), as well as the ultimate conclusion that the statutory provision is not violative of equal protection principles.