Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Pa. Commw. 51

Simpson v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 1979

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1979-12-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The petitioner was eligible to receive holiday pay for July 5, 1982, because he met the initial criteria of having completed a probationary period of employment and of having seniority rights. The collective agreement additionally required that to be eligible for holiday pay, the employee must perform work within the qualifying work week, a condition which the petitioner did not satisfy. However, the collective bargaining agreement contained the following double condition which the petitioner met: However, an employees failure to perform work within such ‘qualifying work-week’ shall be excused for this purpose if due to one of the following reasons: (1) A personal injury out of and in the course of employment with the Company, provided such injury has not caused the employee to be absent from work for more than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the holiday. The petitioner was eligible because his failure to work during the qualifying work-week was due to an injury in the course of his employment and because he worked on June 6, 1982 a day within thirty days prior to July 5, 1982.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 96 Pa. Commw. 313 - Hartwell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

“[Wjhether or not [Blue Cross and Blue Shield] payments may be credited against an employer’s workmen’s compensation obligations ‘depends not on whether the payments are categorized as a benefit of a collective bargaining agreement, but rather whether the payments were made as wages for work performed or in relief of the employee’s incapacity to labor.’ Steinle v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 246 , 393 A.2d 503 , 506 (1978). The criterion, then, for allowing a credit is whether the claimant would be required to 'deplete benefits . . . which could have been used for other purposes.’ [Olivetti, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 470 , 364 A.2d at 738 ]. Here, petitioner was not required to deplete benefits that would have been otherwise due him or which could have been used for other purposes. Thus, the employer is entitled to the credit.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 100 Pa. Commw. 33 - Humphrey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Relies on Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Olivetti Corp. of America · General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · Steinle v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-12-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2010

7 state decisions

4019791980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

¶2In this workmen’s compensation appeal, the sole issue is whether the Township of Marple (employer) is entitled to a credit against compensation payable to William J. Simpson (petitioner) for his, medical and hospital expenses, which were paid by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BC & BS), and for which no subrogation interest has been asserted. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) granted the credit, and petitioner appeals to this court.1 We affirm.

¶3Petitioner argues that, since the BC & BS payments were a benefit provided under the collective bargaining agreement, employer should not be allowed to *53use those payments as a credit towards meeting its workmen’s compensation obligations. We have recently determined, however, that whether or not such payments may be credited against an employer’s workmen’s compensation obligations “depends not upon whether the payments are categorized as a benefit of a collective bargaining agreement, but rather whether the payments were made as wages for work performed or in relief of the employee’s incapacity to labor.” Steinle v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 246, 393 A.2d 503, 506 (1978). The criterion, then, for allowing a credit is whether the claimant would be required to “deplete benefits . . . which could have been used for other purposes.” Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 464, 470, 364 A.2d 735, 738 (1976). Here, petitioner was not required to deplete benefits that would have been otherwise due him or which could have been used for other purposes. Thus, employer is entitled to the credit. See Steinle, supra, and Olivetti, supra.

¶4Petitioner argues, however, that public policy permits simultaneous recovery by him from both employer and a private health insurance plan for the injuries sustained. See General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 473, 332 A.2d 867 (1975). General Tire, however, can be easily distinguished by the fact that here petitioner failed to provide any evidence that his bills were paid by a private insurance plan for which he paid premiums. Furthermore, the Board found as a fact that BC & BS coverage was provided by the employer, a finding which was supported by the record. A further distinguishing factor is that, in General Tire, the group health benefits received by claimant were for viral bronchitis and intercostal neuritis which *54did not result from an injury in the course of his employment.

¶5Accordingly, we enter the following

¶6Order

¶7And Now, this 17th day of December, 1979, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated April 20, 1978, is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, it is ordered that judgment be entered in favor of William J. Simpson and against the Township of Marple and its insurance carrier, Pennsylvania National Insurance Company, in the amount of $60 per week for the period from March 6, 1972 to and including June 12, 1972, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on deferred payments of compensation from the date due to the date paid, all within the terms and limits of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Township and/or its insurance carrier is further directed to reimburse claimant for drugs, in the amount of $300.18, and for services by Dr. Schwartz, in the amount of $31. The Township and/or its insurance carrier shall pay directly to claimant’s attorney 20 percent of all compensation and interest thereon payable to claimant out of the claimant’s compensation and interest and shall pay the balance of the compensation and interest directly to claimant.

¶8 The Board otherwise ruled that petitioner had suffered a compensable injury and was entitled to compensation.

/48/pacommw/51 · .json · Public domain