Court Opinion

ID: 9638253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:38:54.894364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:11.735795
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
While I join the majority opinion in finding that the remand is necessary, I write separately to note that the cases relied on by the majority—Kiebler v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Specialty Tire of America), 738 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999); Fahringer, McCarty & Grey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Green), 529 A.2d 56 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987); and a decision of our Supreme Court—Lucey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vy-Cal Plastics), 557 Pa. 272, 732 A.2d 1201 (1999)—only allow payments from future compensation. If Claimant’s benefits are again terminated, I would hold that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to enter a general judgment and order payment from a claimant directly and, as the term suggests, can only order an offset from future benefits. I would also hold that an offset can only be collected from benefits awarded in the proceeding that is before the WCJ, and the amount of offset is not “banked” to be offset from any compensation, if any, awarded in future proceedings.