Superior Court 7/7/08 - UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARK HOHIDER

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARK HOHIDER
No. 1596 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 148 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/7/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Civil Division at No. 1723 of 2007
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
United Parcel Service and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively “Employer”) appeal from the order dated and entered on July 27, 2007, that granted Mark Hohider’s (“Claimant”) motion to strike the judgment entered against Claimant on the common pleas docket by Employer. The order that formed the basis for the judgment was issued by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) directing Claimant to pay Employer $67,223.23 in satisfaction of Employer’s subrogation lien on a portion of the amount received by Claimant in a third-party action. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


¶ 7 Our review of Employer’s praecipe to enter judgment reveals that it
cited two sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), namely, Section
428 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 921, and Section 319 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 671, to
support its entry of judgment against Claimant for failure to “disgorge to
employer $67,223.23 in satisfaction of employer’s subrogation lien.” WCJ’s
Order, 12/19/06.
¶ 8 “Section 319 of the Act authorizes an employer to be reimbursed for
compensation benefits paid to an injured employee from the award of
damages recovered by that employee from a third party for the work-related
injury.” Kidd-Parker v. W.C.A.B. (Phila. Sch. Dist.), 907 A.2d 33, 37
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 916 A.2d 1104 (Pa. 2007). “[A]s a
general principle of law, the employer’s subrogation rights are statutorily
absolute and can be abrogated only by choice.” Id. at 40 (quoting Winfree
v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 554 A.2d 485, 487 (Pa. 1989)). The Kidd-
Parker opinion further explained that:
The purpose of this subrogation is threefold: it prevents double
recovery for the same injury; it relieves the employer of liability
occasioned by the negligence of a third party; and it prevents a
third party from escaping liability for his negligence. Dale
Manufacturing Co. v. Bressi, 491 Pa. 493, 421 A.2d 653
(1980). Section 319 is clear and unambiguous; is written in
mandatory terms; and admits no exceptions, equitable or
otherwise. Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal
Board (USF&G Co.), 566 Pa. 420, 781 A.2d 1146 (2001). The
employer’s right to subrogation under Section 319 is automatic,
and it is absolute. Winfree v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 520
Pa. 392, 554 A.2d 485 (1989).
Id. at 37. Accordingly, we conclude that Employer has the absolute right to
subrogation pursuant to Section 319 of the Act. Moreover, the parties
stipulated to the sum due Employer during the proceedings before the WCJ.