Court Opinion

ID: 9641604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:36:00.693062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.582960
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Mencer:
I respectfully dissent. The words to be interpreted in Section 206(a) of the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, 40 P.S. §1009.206(a), are the following: “all other benefits . . . received by or available to an individual because of the injury from any government . . . shall be subtracted from loss in calculating net loss.” The majority modifies this clear and explicit language by excluding from “all other benefits” the item of sick pay. It does so under the claim of determining legislative intent.
Even though a court may be convinced that the legislature intended to enact something different from that which it did, if the language of the statute, as here, is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given
its plain and obvious meaning. Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp., 419 Pa. 52, 213 A.2d 277 (1965).
Likewise, the word “all” is a most comprehensive adjective referring to other benefits and is surely diminished by a result that assigns to it a meaning of “all, except sick pay. ’ ’
The majority concludes that there is something unfair for a government employee, contrasted with a private employee, who receives sick pay, not to be reimbursed for his lost income twice. He receives full payment from the government for the days lost due to his injury in an automobile accident but does not collect a second time from his no-fault insurer.
*38If such a result is undesirable, unfair, or unrealistic, then the arguments made here to correct such a result should be addressed to the legislature who has, so far as I can understand, clearly and explicitly stated that all benefits received from the government “because of the injury” are to be deducted in calculating net loss.
I would hold the words “all other benefits ’ ’, as used in Section 206(a), to be all inclusive and reverse the Commissioner’s ruling in this case..