Court Opinion

ID: 9765436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:02:47.950358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:09.644345
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. It correctly holds that the evidence was sufficient to show that appellee’s injury was permanent and that he was no longer eligible for Heart and *88Lung Act benefits. I would go farther, however, and overrule our decision in Palmeri v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Police, 508 Pa. 544, 499 A.2d 278 (1985). Today we hold that the employer must show “a ‘reasonable inference’ that the disability is of lasting or indefinite duration.” Supra at 45. This is a restatement of the reasoning set forth in my dissent to Palmeri, supra. In that dissent, I stated that the length of the disability coupled with medical testimony about the nature of the disability can be sufficient to raise a “reasonable inference” of permanency. 508 Pa. at 553, 499 A.2d at 282 (Hutchinson, J., dissenting). Thus, I would overrule Palmeri and avoid the problems referred to by Mr. Justice Larsen in his instant dissent.