 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ferguson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board2/14/2002
Amy Ferguson (Claimant), surviving spouse of James D. Ferguson (Decedent), appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a decision of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting Wright Masonry Contracting, Inc.'s (Employer) termination petition on the grounds that Claimant had engaged in a meretricious relationship in violation of Section 307(7) of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act).
Decedent died on July 9, 1990, as a result of electrocution by lightning while in the scope of his employment with Employer. Employer and Claimant subsequently entered into an agreement for compensation for death which provided compensation benefits for Claimant and her two minor children. In April 1999, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that Claimant was in a meretricious relationship as defined in Section 307(7) of the Act which provides, in pertinent part:
Should any dependent of a deceased employee die or remarry ..., the right of such dependent ... to compensation under this section shall cease except that if a widow remarries, she shall receive one hundred four weeks compensation ... in a lump sum after which compensation shall cease: Provided, however, that if, upon investigation and hearing, it shall be ascertained that the widow or widower is living with a man or woman, as the case may be, in meretricious relationship and not married ... the board may order the termination of compensation payable to such widow or widower. 77 P.S. ยง562.
At the hearing before the WCJ, Claimant testified that she had been living with her boyfriend, Steve Johnson (Johnson), for a period of two years and had engaged in sexual relations with him. After deducting his child support payments, she testified that Johnson earned approximately $198.00 per week and used this money to pay their mortgage, real estate insurance, property taxes and to contribute to their weekly grocery expenses. She went on to state that she received $1,494.00 in social security payments and used this money, as well as her compensation benefits, to pay for household utilities, her car payment, car insurance and miscellaneous household bills. Claimant stated that although she was capable of working, because her social security benefits would be reduced and she would have to pay for child care, she did not seek employment.
Determining that Claimant's own admissions relating to her cohabitation with Johnson as well as the nature of their relationship was sufficient to establish a meretricious relationship, the WCJ granted Employer's termination petition. The WCJ further concluded that because Claimant derived a significant economic benefit from her relationship with Johnson, making her self-supporting, the $384.00 loss in monthly compensation benefits would not result in economic hardship for Claimant. Moreover, the WCJ noted that Claimant would continue to receive her monthly social security benefits and she was capable of entering the work force if she wished to do so. Contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the WCJ's finding that engaging in the meritorious relationship resulted in her being self-supporting, Claimant appealed to the Board which affirmed the WCJ's determination. This appeal followed.
As she did before the Board, Claimant contends that because Employer failed to establish the exact amount of the monthly mortgage payments made by Johnson and offered no testimony relating to Claimant's earning potential, there was not substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding that Claimant was self-supporting and would not suffer economic hardship as a result of the termination of benefits. Claimant's own testimony, ho
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|