Case Name: Robert HOSTLER, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MILLER WAGMAN, INC.), Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2012-05-02
Citations: 44 A.3d 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert HOSTLER, Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MILLER WAGMAN, INC.), Respondent.
Judges: Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 44
Pages: 26–27

Head Matter:
Robert HOSTLER, Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MILLER WAGMAN, INC.), Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 2, 2012.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND. NOW, this 2nd day of May 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the portion of the Commonwealth Court's Order that reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board order is VACATED, and the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's calculation of petitioner's average weekly wage, is REINSTATED. The WCJ did not err in finding that petitioner did not maintain a continuous employment relationship with Employer, as petitioner did not "retain[ ] significant rights/accoutrements of employment" with Employer. Contrast Reifsnyder v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Dana Corporation), 584 Pa. 341, 883 A.2d 537, 547 (2005) (although injured employees were subject to work-related layoffs for business/economic reasons, these claimants "nevertheless maintained continuous employment relationships with Employer[.] . [I]n those down times where layoffs occurred, [pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement, claimants retained significant rights/accoutrements of employment, such as plant seniority, healthcare and sick leave benefits, and employer contributions to their retirement accounts."). Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court's calculation of petitioner's average weekly wage under 77 P.S. § 582(d) was erroneous and the WCJ's alternate calculation of petitioner's average weekly wage, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensa tion Appeal Board, was correct. The WCJ's alternate calculation is necessary to fairly assess claimant's earnings, Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Snyder, Jr.), 575 Pa.66, 834 A.2d 524 (2003), and advances the humanitarian purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act, id, and the purpose of Section 582 — to accurately capture economic reality when calculating claimant's average weekly wage. Reifsnyder, 883 A.2d at 548.
Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement.