Court Opinion

ID: 9709536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:50:17.808122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:49.760394
License: Public Domain

Justice BAER
concurring.
I fully concur with the Majority’s conclusion that the five-year statute of limitations, set forth in § 1112 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), 77 P.S. § 1039.12, applies to prosecutions for an employer’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to 77 P.S. § 501(b)(3). I write separately, however, because, rather than finding the language of the statute of limitations set forth below to be plain, as does the Majority, I conclude that this Court should look to the *466rules of statutory construction to determine if the term “this act” applies to the WCA in toto, or only to insurance fraud prosecutions brought under Article XI of the WCA.
The WCA was first passed in 1915, and has since been amended many times, including an amendment in 1993, inter alia adding Article XI relating to insurance fraud, and an omnibus amendment in 1996, modifying multiple sections of the WCA, including, but not limited to, Article XI. See Act of July 2, 1993, P.L. 190, No. 44; Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, No. 57 (hereinafter “Act 57”). It is uncontested, however, that until Act 57, the WCA never contained a statute of limitations. See Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, No. 57, § 27, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1039.12.
Appellants Corban Corporation and William Condosta’s argument that the Act 57 five-year statute of limitations does not apply to this case centers upon the meaning of the term “this act” as used in the statute:
A prosecution for an offense under this act must be commenced within five years after commission of the offense. 77 P.S. § 1039.12 (emphasis added). If this term applies to all of the WCA, then the five-year statute of limitations added by Act 57 controls any criminal prosecution thereunder, including the one at issue here, alleging failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. Conversely, if the term “this act” applies to Act 57 only, the crime in this case would not be governed by this five-year statute of limitations, because an employer’s failure to pay compensation insurance is not a crime of insurance fraud under Article XI, which was amended by Act 57. Instead, this case would be controlled by the Commonwealth’s default two-year limitations period set forth in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552(a).
Noting that the term “this act” is not defined in the WCA or anywhere else in Pennsylvania statutory law, Appellants look to the legislative context of the WCA arguing that the term “this act” in the provision was intended to establish a five-year limitations period only for insurance fraud, and was not intended to be applicable to the entirety of the WCA. They extract meaning from the General Assembly’s numbering of *467the statute of limitations as § 1112 in Article XI, which relates exclusively to insurance fraud. They additionally assert that “this act” refers to “Act 57,” which included revisions to Article XI’s insurance fraud provisions.1 It is noteworthy that Appellants’ interpretation would provide for a statute of limitations for insurance fraud that would be commensurate with the five-year limitations period for criminal insurance fraud prosecutions brought outside of the WCA.2
Moreover, Appellants observe that if the General Assembly intended the five-year provision to govern the entirety of the WCA, it could have placed the five-year limitations period in Article V of the WCA, entitled “General Provisions” rather than in Article XI, relating to “Insurance Fraud.” Appellants further assert that if the General Assembly intended the five-year limitations period to apply to the entire WCA, and not just Article XI, it could have used the term “prosecutions under the Workers’ Compensation Act,” not “prosecutions under this act.” 77 P.S. § 1039.12 (emphasis added); see also 77 P.S. § 1 (“[Tjhis act shall be called and cited the Workers’ Compensation Act”). Accordingly, Appellants assert that the limitations period relates solely to insurance fraud cases, and not to the crime for which they are charged. Assuming arguendo the correctness of this argument, Appellants assert that the limitations period on the criminal activity alleged against them is the default two-year limitations period, outlined in Title 42:
(a) GENERAL RULE — Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced within two years after it is committed.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5552.
The trial court agreed with Appellants that the two-year limitations period was applicable in the instant case based on *468an analysis of the interplay between the Crimes Code, the Judicial Code, and other statutes outlining criminal offenses. The trial court concluded that the function of Part I of the Crimes Code is to establish-norms to govern criminal proceedings. The court observed that the Crimes Code referenced the Judicial Code’s default two-year limitations period, which applies to all offenses defined by any statute. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 107(a) (“General rule. — The provisions of Part I of this title (relating to preliminary provisions) are applicable, to offenses defined by this title or by any other statute.”); 18 Pa.C.S. § 108(a) (“General rule. — Except as set forth in subsection (b) [referring to offenses against unborn children], a prosecution for any offense under this title must be commenced within the period, if any, limited by Chapter 55 of Title 42 (relating to limitation of time).”). ■ Appellants therefore argue that the trial judge was correct that, given the inapplicability of the five-year provision, the two-year default provision referenced in the Crimes Code controlled.
While the Majority concludes that § 1112 is explicit and that “this act” plainly means the WCA, I respectfully conclude that § 1112 is unclear on its face, but I nonetheless reject Appellants’ argument after application of the Rules of Statutory Construction. “When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Only when the words used by the legislature in enacting a statute are not explicit does a court turn to other factors to ascertain the legislature’s intent, including legislative history. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c). Moreover, pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S. § 1953, “[w]henever a section or part of a statute is amended, the amendment shall be construed as merging into the original statute .., and the remainder of the statute and the amendment shall be read together and viewed as one statute passed at one time.”
Although the meaning of the term “this act” is disputable as it appears in the statute, its meaning is clear from the legislation actually passed by the General Assembly. Enacted to amend the existing WCA, Act 57 provides in relevant part:
*469Section 27. The act is amended by adding a section to read:
Section 1112. A prosecution for an offense under this act must be commenced within five years after the commission of the offense.
Act of June 24, 1996 P.L. 350, § 27. Utilizing Appellants’ interpretation would require us to hold that the legislature used the term “act” in the introductory language of § 27 to refer to the WCA and then employed the same term in § 1112 to refer to Act 57. It strains common sense, however, to contend that the legislature, in an attempt to restrict the statute of limitations to insurance fraud offenses in Article XI, used the term “this act” to mean Act 57, when, in fact, Act 57 was an omnibus act amending many parts of the WCA.3 As noted above, Act 57 is not identical to Article XI, indeed both contain provisions not included in the other.
Moreover, as well demonstrated by the Majority, a review of other Article XI provisions amended by Act 57 reveals that the General Assembly was capable of limiting the reach of its provisions to Article XI or even specific clauses or sections when it desired. So, it employed the term “this section” to *470apply to the relevant statutory section, “this article” to apply to Article XI, and “this act” to apply to Workers’ Compensation Act. See Maj. Op. at 464, 957 A.2d at 277. Thus, the best interpretation of the language used herein is that the word “act” in both § 27’s introductory phrase and in § 1112 refers not to a chapter or section of the WCA, but to the “act” itself.4
Accordingly, based on all of the rationale of the majority opinion as well as the statutory construction analysis herein, I concur and conclude that the five-year limitations period applies to the prosecutions for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to 77 P.S. §• 501(b)(3).
Justice TODD and Justice McCAFFERY join.

. As discussed infra, the flaw in Appellant's argument is that Act 57 and Article XI are not identical. Accordingly, despite Appellant’s argument, a reference to Act 57 does not necessarily implicate only insurance fraud provisions.

. Although it is equally noteworthy that this Court’s interpretation yields a like result by applying the five-year limitations period to all criminal actions brought under the WCA, including insurance fraud.

. We note that the title of Act 57 indicates the legislature's intended purpose to amend the WCA by
further providing for definitions, for recovery, for liability for compensation, for financial responsibility, for compensation schedules and for wages; providing for reporting; further providing for notices, for examinations, for commutation of compensation, for exclusions, for the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board and for procedure; pi-oviding for informal conferences; further providing for processing claims, for commutation petitions, for modifications and reversals, for pleadings, for investigations, for evidence, for appeals, for regulations, for costs and attorney fees, for the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation advisory council and for insurance policies; providing for settlements and for collective bargaining; further providing for ratings organizations, for rating procedures and for shared liability; providing for employer association groups; further providing for safety committees, for penalties, for prosecutions and for collection of penalties; providing for limitation of actions; further providing for assessments; providing for Workers' Compensation judges and for transfer of administrative functions; transferring provisions relating to the state Workmen's Insurance Fund and broadening its permissible coverages; and making a repeal.
Act 57.

. I, likewise, agree with the Majority’s conclusion that we must consider that the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). A two-year limitations period for initiating a criminal prosecution for failure to provide workers' compensation insurance would seriously impair the Commonwealth's ability to prosecute such offenses because the limitations period could ran prior to the expiration of the period for filing a worker’s compensation claim.