Court Opinion

ID: 9732297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:14:43.992114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:25.822603
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, JR-:
I respectfully dissent.
The Courts of this Commonwealth have held that “disability is to be regarded as synonymous with ‘loss of *215earning power.’ ” Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 377 Pa. 7, 12, 104 A.2d 104, 107 (1954). See also Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 491 Pa. 294, 420 A.2d 1325 (1980); Luciani v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Brockway Glass Co.), 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 623, 520 A.2d 1256, appeal denied, 516 Pa. 644, 533 A.2d 415 (1987).
The referee found that Zimcosky was “capable of returning to his former regular work with an ‘indefinite residual disability’ which would not affect his earnings or earning power.” Finding of Fact No. 8, Referee’s Decision. In effect, the referee has inconsistently found that Zimcosky has a residual disability but is not disabled. There is, of course, a difference between the medical and legal definitions of disability, Luciani. However, unless the referee finds that a claimant is legally disabled—that is, has manifested a loss of earning power—the employer should not be burdened to show work availability. Under Kachinski, an employer is required to prove job availability when the claimant is not able to perform his pre-injury duties.. Here, the referee expressly found credible and accepted the employer’s medical testimony that Zimcosky was capable of performing his regular job.
I would affirm.