Court Opinion

ID: 9757890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:03:16.646613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.352612
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I concur with the majority insofar as it overturns the rule that a disability claimant under the Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 566, §301, as amended, 77 P.S. §1401 (Supp. 1966) found physically able to do light work of a general nature is presumed able to find such work. I am impelled to this conclusion by the view that the approach taken by federal decisions dealing with the analogous disability provisions of the Social Security Act is the one most consonant with justice and economic reality. Those cases adopt the rule that when a claimant is found physically capable of performing light work of a general character, the burden should be on the party from whom compensation is sought to show that such work is available to the claimant. Baker v. Gardner, 362 F. 2d 864 (3d Cir. 1966); Hodgson v. Celebrezze, 357 F. 2d 750, 755 (3d Cir. 1966) (and cases cited therein).
Of course, until now it has been settled law in the Superior Court that when a claimant is found to be physically capable of doing light work of a general character, such work is presumed to be available. Sorby v. Three Rivers Motors, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 114 A. 2d 347 (1955); Hurtuk v. H. C. Frick Coke Co., 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 317, 43 A. 2d 559 (1945). Thus, it would have been unreasonable to expect the employer to have come forward with evidence of the availability of light work of a general character before the tribunals below. Hence, it is to give the employer the opportunity of meeting that burden that we remand.