Title: Harry Riddle, Aplt v. WCAB (Allegheny City Electric) (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-14-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT HARRY RIDDLE, Appellant v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ALLEGHENY CITY ELECTRIC, INC.), Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 54 WAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered January 8, 2008 at No. 1390 CD 2007, affirming the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered June 28, 2007 at No. A06-2132. ARGUED: March 4, 2009 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: OCTOBER 22, 2009 I join the majority opinion, except for its indication that, with the 1996 amendments to Section 306(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. §512, the General Assembly “replaced” this Court’s approach under Kachinski v. WCAB (Vepco Const. Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987). See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 8. I find this assertion to be confusing, since this Court has continued to apply and refine Kachinski, most recently in Lewis v. WCAB (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 591 Pa. 490, 919 A.2d 922 (2007). Moreover, the Commonwealth Court has maintained that an employer may establish job availability, alternatively, through the use of a labor market survey as prescribed in Section 306(b) or via the Kachinski method entailing, inter alia, identification of an available job within the claimant’s capabilities. See, e.g., Rebeor v. [J-14-2009] - 2 WCAB (Eckerd), 976 A.2d 655, 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Thus, while the majority’s characterization is consistent with the opening passage of Section 306(b)(2), 77 P.S. §512(2) (providing that “’[e]arning power’ shall be determined by the work the employe is capable of performing and shall be based upon expert opinion evidence which includes job listings with agencies of the department, private job placement agencies and advertisements in the usual employment area”), it suggests a substantial shift in actual practice as reflected in prevailing decisional law. Accordingly, I would leave the issue of whether the Section 306(b) amendments replaced Kachinski to a case in which the question is squarely before the Court. Mr. Justice Baer and Madame Justice Todd join this concurring opinion.