Court Opinion

ID: 9700245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:17:01.991599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:05.635184
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I do so for reasons other than the reasons advanced in that opinion.
*371The issue in this case is whether a volunteer fireman is covered so as to be entitled to the benefits afforded by the Occupational Disease Act. 77 P.S. § 1201 et seq. Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1201 et seq. The Commonwealth Court found that “volunteer firemen do not qualify as employees as that term is defined within [‘the Act’] . . . .” Commonwealth v. Bley, 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 342, 343, 368 A.2d 872, 873 (1977).
Section 101 the jurisdictional section of the Act, states, inter alia, that the Act “shall apply to disabilities and deaths caused by occupational disease as defined in this Act, resulting from employment within this Commonwealth, irrespective of the place where the contract of hiring was made . .” Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended 77 P.S. § 1201 (Emphasis added). The term “employment” which is used in section 101 above is never defined in the Act. Section 103 of the Act defines “employer” to be “synonymous with master . . . .” 77 P.S. § 1203. Section 104 of the Act provides inter alia :
“The term ‘employe’, as used in this act, is declared to be synonymous with servant, and includes all natural persons who perform services, except agricultural services or domestic services performed in a private home for another for a valuable consideration, exclusive of persons whose employment is casual in character and not in the regular course of the business of the employer and exclusive of persons to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in the worker’s own home, or on other premises not under the control or management of the employer.”
Act of June 21, 1939, supra, as amended February 28, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1095, § 1, 77 P.S. § 1204 (Emphasis added). At this point it is significant to point out that an ambiguity exists insofar as Section 101 of the Act employs the terms, “employment” and “contract of hiring,” (which may be interpreted to require pecuniary compensation), while Section 104 of the Act equates the generic term, “employe,” *372with the generic term, “servant,” and states that the generic term shall include those who perform services “for valuable consideration . . . ” It is possible to read section 104 as intended by the legislature to mean that the term “employe” includes those who perform services without compensation as well. See Restatement, Second of Agency, § 16 (a master-servant relationship can exist despite the fact that it is not based on consideration). The majority opinion is absent any reference to section 104, which, when compared with the term “employment” in section 101, produces the ambiguity.
The majority’s interpretation of the statutory term, “employment” is questionable. Obviously, the word “employment” refers to the relationship which exists between an “employer” (as defined by section 103) and an “employe” (as defined by section 104). The critical question is whether the Act requires an employe member of the employment relationship to be compensated. The statutory language is unclear and ambiguous and creates substantial doubt as to the intent of the legislature. I am unable to determine the ultimate question whether a volunteer fireman was intended to be entitled to the statutory benefits without resort to principles of statutory construction.
“The Occupational Disease Act must be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial and humanitarian purposes.” Butler v. United States Steel Corp., 205 Pa.Super. 508, 513, 211 A.2d 35, 37 (1965). Furthermore, it has been said that “Where there is substantial doubt concerning the intent of the legislature it is our duty to adopt a rule of liberal construction as a guide in order to effectuate the remedial purpose of the Act.” Lowe v. Am. Radiator & St. San. Corp., 178 Pa.Super. 137, 143, 113 A.2d 330, 333 (1955).1
*373Therefore, in light of the remedial purpose to be achieved by the Occupational Disease Act,2 I believe we are required to interpret the statutory term, “employment” as not being restricted to relationships based on valuable consideration.
MANDERINO, J., joins this opinion.

. My interpretation is further supported by the deletion of the language, “full time salaried occupation of . . . ” from section 108(o) of the Act:
“The courts have declared that the mere fact that the legislature enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one. Therefore, any material change in the language of the origi*373nal act is presumed to indicate a change in legal rights. The legislature is presumed to know the prior construction of -terms in the original act, and an amendment substituting a new term or phrase for one previously construed indicates that the judicial or executive construction of the former term or phrase did not correspond with the legislative intent and a different interpretation should be given the new term or phrase. Thus, in interpreting an amendatory act there is a presumption of change in legal rights. This is a rule peculiar to amendments and other acts .purporting to change the existing statutory law.”
Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 22.30 (4th Ed. 1972) (footnotes omitted). See Commonwealth v. Lowe Coal Co., 296 Pa. 359, 365-66, 145 A. 916 (1929); Nemitz v. Air Serv. International, 7 Pa. Cmwlth. 373, 379, 298 A.2d 654, 657 (1922). See generally, 1 Pa.C. S.A. § 1953 (Supp. 1978-79).

. The majority mentions many laudatory policy reasons for extending benefits to volunteer firemen. While I agree that firefighting "is an extremely hazardous occupation” and that those performing this function are deserving of every consideration, that fact alone would not justify recovery. The determination of policy is exclusively within the province of the legislature. See Mt. Lebanon v. County Bd. of Elections of Allegheny County, 470 Pa. 317, 368 A.2d 648 (1977); Mayhugh v. Coon, 460 Pa. 128, 331 A.2d 452 (1975) (the function of the Court is to interpret legislative enactments and not to promulgate them).