Court Opinion

ID: 9746478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:18:28.605604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:13.602365
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Justice BAER.
I join the thorough and well-reasoned majority opinion reversing the decision of the Commonwealth Court and holding that Section 309(d) controls the computation of AWW in this case. I write separately only to distance myself respectfully from the majority’s conclusion that unemployment compensation benefits should not be included in the computation of an employee’s AWW under Section 309(d) where an employee’s relationship with an employer involves periodic layoffs. Maj. Op. at 358-60, 883 A.2d at 548. Notwithstanding that the parties could have directly raised, briefed and argued this issue explicitly before this Court, they have not. Therefore, I believe it would be more prudent to delay consideration of this difficult issue until a party raises it directly and the *361Court has the benefit of focused advocacy concerning whether inclusion of the unemployment compensation benefits in the AWW would provide a more “accurate measure of a worker’s earnings history and earning capacity.” Maj. Op. at 358-60, 883 A.2d at 548. In all other respects, I join the erudite majority opinion.
Chief Justice CAPPY, Justice NIGRO and Justice NEWMAN join this concurring opinion.