Temple v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Highways
| Decision Date | 20 December 1971 |
| Citation | 285 A.2d 137,445 Pa. 539 |
| Parties | David L. TEMPLE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS and State Workmen's Insurance Fund. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
In this workmen's compensation case we granted an appeal from the Superior Court's action in affirming a lower court order which dismissed the employer and insurance carrier's appeal from the Workmen's Compensation Board. The Board had affirmed a referee's order that appellants, Pennsylvania Department of Highways and State Workmen's Insurance Fund, insurance carrier for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways, pay compensation for 50 per cent. partial disability to the claimant, David L. Temple, appellee herein.
Although a question has been raised as to whether or not the claimant's disability, dating from February 23, 1965, was due to an accident, this issue is not pressed here. If not abandoned, the accident question is clearly without merit on the facts in the record.
The relevant issue for our review is whether or not the State Workmen's Insurance Fund, insurance Carrier for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways, should be relieved of its obligation to pay the partial disability compensation ordered during the 41 1/2 days immediately following the accident, because of credit claimed by it for payments to the claimant by the Department of Highways of wages due him as sick leave during that period.
The factual circumstances are pertinent. The accident occurred on February 23, 1965. The State Workmen's Insurance Fund denied liability on the ground that the claimant had not suffered an accident. No hearing before a referee was held until January 21, 1966. In the meantime, claimant was offered his sick leave wages to which he was entitled under his contract of employment. He chose to take the sick leave which covered the period of 41 1/2 days. Apparently, he still has not received any of the workmen's compensation due him quite aside from the disputed 41 1/2 days in question, probably because of the extended litigation.
Now, before us is solely the State Workmen's Insurance Fund's contention that all of the preceding authorities who have passed upon this case have erred in failing to allow the credit claimed for the brief partial disability period in question. To support its position the State Fund relies principally upon the Superior Court case of Creighton v. Continental Roll & Steel Foundry Co., 155 Pa.Super.Ct. 165, 38 A.2d 337 (1944). Creighton was, in substance, based upon our last pronouncement on this subject in the 1921 case of Chase v. Emery Mfg. Co., 271 Ap. 265, 113 A. 840 (1921). We have examined all of appellant's authorities and conclude that Creighton is not controlling and that Chase does not support defendants' contention.
It is true that Creighton holds that 'when an employe is Totally disabled and the employer, while denying any liability for workmen's compensation, nevertheless pays the employe regular stated amounts, weekly or monthly, either out of its own general funds, or out of sick or accident benefits or relief funds contributed by it, not as wages or salary for work performed, but in relief of the employe's incapacity to labor, on its being determined that the employe is entitled to workmen's compensation, the amount paid by the employer discharges its liability for compensation For the weeks in which its payments to him equalled or exceeded the compensation payable.' (Emphasis the Court's). In addition to several Superior Court cases cited in Creighton as supporting the statement quoted, our Chase case is also noted as an authority in support of the holding.
First of all, we do not have Total disability here, nor do we have sick or accident benefits, but actually have 'wages or salary for work performed', because sick leave like vacation pay is an incident or benefit provided under the work agreement and is an entitlement like wages for services performed. The payments in Creighton and those in Chase were definitely not incidents to wages earned for the performance of job duties, but were payments specifically 'in lieu of compensation'.
It is urged strenuously that even though sick leave and vacation pay are available to workers regardless of whether or not they are injured in the line of duty, the 'available sick leave' payments in this case must be accepted in lieu of compensation during the work related disability, even though 'available vacation pay' could not be charged off against workmen's compensation. This contention and the different treatment for such similar types of absentee pay is based by the appellants upon the fact that the Department of Highways required and obtained the signature of claimant to a paper entitled 'EMPLOYE'S CHOICE OF DISABILITY BENEFITS', in which he adopted an option to take available sick leave while waiting for his compensation payments to be made....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. WCAB (US AIRWAYS GROUP)
...employers are not entitled to credit for the payment of accrued benefits or earned income. See Temple v. Pa. Dep't of Highways and State Workmen's Ins. Fund, 445 Pa. 539, 285 A.2d 137 (1971) (denying credit for sick pay received by an injured worker during the same period that disability be......
-
State v. Boykin
...time, like vacation time, is not a gratuity but is compensation granted for services rendered. Cf. Temple v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Highways, 445 Pa. 539, 285 A.2d 137 (1971); Ramey v. State, 296 Mich. 449, 296 N.W. 323 We hold that the law enforcement officers are entitled to compensatory t......
-
Nevius v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd.
.... . . varying the amount to be paid . . . as provided in this act, shall be wholly null and void." See Temple v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 445 Pa. 539, 285 A.2d 137 (1971). Claimant's final argument is that Section 307, which provides that "the board may order the termination of ......
-
Ex parte Dunlop Tire Corp.
...A.2d 636 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 655, 664 A.2d 544 (1995), the Commonwealth Court cited Temple v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Highways, 445 Pa. 539, 285 A.2d 137 (1971), for the following "The Supreme Court noted in Temple that sick leave, like vacation pay, was 'an incident or......