Court Opinion

ID: 9709699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:53:10.156227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.947324
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree that appellant’s suit against his employer is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Accordingly, I dissent.
Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states that “All courts shall be open, and every man for an injury done him in his ... person ... shall have remedy by due course of law____” Thus, workmen’s compensation, which limits the rights of employees to sue their employers for injuries incurred in the course of employment, can exist only because the Pennsylvania Constitution also empowers the legislature to abolish certain causes of action by employees against their employers and to enact laws that require employers to pay reasonable compensation to employees who are injured in the course of their employment. Pa. Const, art. 3, § 18.
However, Article 3, Section 18 does not empower the legislature to enact laws that abolish an employee’s cause of action without concurrently providing some statutory remedy. Dolan v. Liton’s Lunch, 397 Pa. 114, 152 A.2d 887, 892 (1959). Consequently, appellant’s cause of action is barred by the Workmen’s Compensation Act only if the Act provides some remedy for appellant’s injury.
*259The Act provides three classifications of compensation for employees injured during the course of their employment: 1) total disability, 77 P.S. § 511; 2) partial disability, 77 P.S. § 512; and 3) specific loss, 77 P.S. § 513. In this case, since appellant’s injury has no effect on his ability to work, he is not entitled to total or partial disability benefits under the Act. In addition, since appellant’s injury is not listed in the specific loss section of the Act, he is not entitled to benefits for a specific loss.
Thus, it is clear that although appellant has suffered a serious permanent injury — namely, permanent impotence— the Act deprives appellant of both a forum for redress and a remedy, in violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and remand this case for trial.