Court Opinion

ID: 9765658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:12:18.8255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:12.550505
License: Public Domain

SAYLOR, Justice,
concurring.
In my view, to allow claimant’s attorney to settle with the medical provider and retain the difference for his benefit, or for the benefit of his client, would subvert the policy and scheme of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Under the Act, a claimant is compensated only for a decrease in earning power occasioned by a work-related injury, see Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 142, 634 A.2d 592, 595-96 (1993), and the obligation of an employer or its insurer related to medical treatment of a claimant is defined by reasonable and necessary medical expenses resulting from the work-related injury, see 77 P.S. § 531.
In the present case, the $30,000 difference between the costs of claimant’s medical treatment and the amount paid by *281employer reflects neither a loss of earnings by claimant, nor an amount actually paid for the medical services he received. Therefore, the majority quite properly holds that employer is entitled to a credit for this money against claimant’s future indemnity and medical benefits.
Justice ZAPPALA joins this concurring opinion.