Title: Colpetzer v. WCAB (Standard Steel), No. 63 MAP 2003 & Zerby v. WCAB (Reading Anthracite Co.) (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-154-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT WILLIAM COLPETZER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (STANDARD STEEL), APPEAL OF: STANDARD STEEL, ************************************************ DAVID ZERBY v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (READING ANTHRACITE COMPANY), APPEAL OF: READING ANTHRACITE COMPANY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 63 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on July 17, 2002, at No. 166 CD 2002, vacating in part and affirming in part the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board entered 12-27-2001 at No. A00-0352. 802 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ARGUED: December 2, 2003: ************************************************ No. 194 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en Banc Commonwealth Court entered on April 14, 2003, at No. 812 CD 2002, affirming in part the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, entered 03- 18-2002 at No. A01-1545, and remanding to the Workers’ Compensation Judge 821 A.2d 193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) ARGUED: December 2, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: March 30, 2005 [J-154-2003] - 2 I join the majority opinion, but write separately to set forth the construction that I believe the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. §1501 et seq., requires of Section 309(d) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. §582(d). I conclude that the language of Section 309(d), specifically the phrase, “total wages,” is not clear as to whether the General Assembly intended that claimants’ previously established average weekly wage (“AWW”) or the benefits they received for their first injuries be used in calculating the benefits they should be awarded for their second injuries. I, therefore, agree with the analysis under the Statutory Construction Act in which the majority engages, see 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(c) ; with the majority’s determination of legislative intent in this regard; and with the holding that relevant periods of compensated work disability in these cases should be computed by using the AWW that was established for claimants’ first injury.1 I, however, do not agree with and disassociate myself from any conclusion on the majority’s part that Section 309(d) is silent on the calculation of benefits question claimants presented. 1 I joined Mr. Justice Eakin’s dissenting opinion in Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Snyder, Jr.), 834 A.2d 524 (Pa. 2003), having also concluded that there was no gap in Section 309(d) as to the calculation of benefits issue raised; that Section 309(d) spoke to the issue explicitly; and that Section 309(d) was to apply. For me, the instant case differs from Hannaberry. Here, Section 309(d) is not clear as to the calculation of benefits issue presented.