Court Opinion

ID: 9701672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:29:56.875395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:27.185633
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN.
I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s discussion, in dicta, of the phrase “no fault of his own.” The majority correctly states that the Supreme Court, in Stevens v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Consolidation Coal Co.), 563 Pa. 297, 310, 760 A.2d 369, 377 (2000), concluded that the test to determine whether a claimant may receive benefits “depends upon whether the employer can demonstrate that suitable work was available or would have been available but *1160for circumstances which merit allocation of the consequences of the discharge to the claimant, such as claimant’s lack of good faith.” (quoting Vista International Hotel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Daniels), 560 Pa. 12, 29, 742 A.2d 649, 658 (1999.))
From this analysis, the majority opinion, in the case sub judice, jumps to the conclusion that “in order to find that a claimant failed to establish his or her burden through no fault of his or her own ... the employer must establish that the circumstances of the claimant’s termination from his or her employment rose to the level of bad faith.” The majority, thus, seemingly requires evidence of a claimant’s bad faith in every case.
There is no evidence of Claimant’s lack of good faith in the case at bar; she apparently performed to the extent of her capabilities, but was unable to meet Employer’s standards. Therefore, under Stevens, the consequences of the discharge could not be allocated to Claimant. It is not necessary for the majority to go any farther.
While I agree that a claimant’s bad faith is clearly one type of circumstance that would prevent reinstatement of benefits, I do not believe that the Court intended it to be the only circumstance. There would be no reason for the Court’s use of the phrase “such as” in its articulation of the test if it intended the lack of good faith to be the “only circumstance that could preclude reinstatement. The Supreme Court specifically leaves open the possibility that a circumstance other than a claimant’s lack of good faith could warrant allocating the consequences of a discharge to him or her. I, thus, disagree with the majority to the extent that it unnecessarily attempts to foreclose that possibility.