Court Opinion

ID: 9746479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:18:28.609887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:13.602991
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION

Justice SAYLOR.
I would affirm based on the reasoning applied by the Commonwealth Court, which I believe implemented a plain-meaning interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. See Reifsnyder v. WCAB (Dana Corp.), 826 A.2d 16 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); accord Bethlehem Structural Products v. WCAB (Vernon), 789 A.2d 767 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Although the majority also lays claim to the application of a plain-meaning approach, I am not persuaded that this characterization is supported. In this regard, while on the one hand the majority gives effect to the substantial difference in connotation between the terms “work” and “employment” in some aspects of its analysis, see Majority Opinion, op. at 357-58, 883 A.2d at 547 (“Notably, the general rule set forth in Section 309(d) does not speak in terms of the continuity of ‘work,’ but rather, the continuity of the ‘employment’ relationship.”), it nevertheless proceeds to equate these two terms in a pivotal passage construing Section 309(d.2). See id. at 357-58, 883 A.2d at 547 (equating “employees who worked less than a single complete period of thirteen calendar weeks at the time they suffered a work injury” exclusively with “recent hires” for purposes of Section 309(d.2)).
I respectfully dissent, as I believe that the Commonwealth Court’s more consistent treatment of the distinct statutory terms involved is the better one. See Reifsnyder, 826 A.2d at 20 (“[T]he issue is whether Claimants worked a complete 13 week period in the 52 weeks preceding their injuries.” (empha*362sis in original)). Given the specific terms selected by the Legislature, and particularly since the relevant policy considerations and equities are substantially mixed,1 it seems to me to be preferable to leave the task of any necessary adjustments to the statutory compensation scheme to the Legislature, within constitutional limitations.

. The effort to implement a comprehensive workers' compensation system entailing standardized benefit formulas implemented in the course of an underlying trade-off between loss spreading and insulation of employers from tort liability inherent in the workers’ compensation scheme, see generally 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 60.31(c), at 10-751-52 (1993), is bound to yield results that, viewed from the individual perspective of claimants and employers in discrete cases, may appear inequitable.