 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galloway v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board8/4/2000
Employer unilaterally suspended Claimant's benefits when she failed to disclose her address on the LIBC-760 Form. Hence, we must determine whether Employer's reliance on Section 311.1(g) of Act 57, was proper and, in turn, whether Employer violated the Act such that penalties are warranted.
When interpreting a statute, a court must ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature and give full effect to each provision of the statute if at all possible. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lopez, 663 A.2d 746 (Pa. Super. 1995)(citing 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a)). Where the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity the legislative intent is to be gleaned from those very words. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424, 664 A.2d 84 (1995). Further, when construing one section of a statute, courts must read that section not by itself, but with reference to, and in light of, the other sections because there is a presumption that in drafting the statute, the General Assembly intended the entire statute to be effective. Lopez, (citing 1 Pa. C.S. §1922).
With these rules of statutory construction in mind, we have reviewed Section 311.1 of Act 57. It is apparent that this Section of Act 57 is aimed at the reporting of employment, self-employment and physical condition by claimants at the request of employers. While Section 311.1(g) of Act 57 does permit the suspension of benefits by an employer in the event a completed verification is not returned by a claimant, we do not believe that the Legislature intended for suspensions to occur in the event a residential address is not listed. In other words, the plain meaning of the Section reflects that suspensions may occur if a verification is lacking information which the Section intends to acquire; namely, information regarding employment, self-employment and/or physical condition.
Nevertheless, we conclude that the Board did not err when it affirmed the WCJ's refusal to award penalties. While we do not countenance Employer's actions and cannot say that such behavior will not be penalized in the future, we do not believe that its actions warrant our incursion on a discretionary function of the WCJ.
Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2000, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is hereby affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|