Court Opinion

ID: 9706411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:42:53.268752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:24.328440
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion in this case based upon the established case law, I write separately to address my concerns regarding the expansion of Section 442 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)1 to encompass matters not contemplated by our General Assembly. More specifically, I do not believe that in enacting Section 442, our General Assembly intended it to be a means of resolving disputes between successive counsel.
Rather, as the express language of Section 442 makes clear, said Section was intended to apply as between a claimant and his attorney. This Section mandates approval of a claimant’s counsel’s fee by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) or the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). I believe that the enactment of this language represents nothing more than our General Assembly’s attempt to provide a means of protection for a claimant against exorbitant and overreaching counsel fees. I do not believe that this Section, nor any other Section in the Act, confers upon the WCJ or the Board the jurisdiction to resolve a dispute such as the one present in this case between successive counsel. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that established precedent from this Court seems to have expanded Section 442 of the Act, thereby conferring such jurisdiction.
For these reasons, I merely concur in the result reached by the majority in this case.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 998. This Section was added by Section 3 of the Act of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25.