Commonwealth Court Cases - Commonwealth Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

þÿ

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nora Burley,
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1449 C.D. 2000
:
Argued: February 5, 2001
Pennsylvania Department of Public
:
Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. LEDERER, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED: May 10, 2001
Nora Burley (Burley) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare (DPW), Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA),
which adopted, in its entirety, a BHA hearing official's recommendation to deny
Burley's appeal of a DPW decision. In that decision, DPW held that benefits
awarded to Burley pursuant to Act 5341 (Act 534 benefits) should be reduced by
the $7,707.00 in benefits that Burley received under the unemployment
compensation (UC) Law2 (UC benefits).

1 Act of December 8, 1959, P.L. 1718, as amended, 61 P.S. §§ 951-52.
2 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
§§751-914.

Burley worked for the New Castle Youth Development Center
(YDC). On April 15, 1996, Burley suffered an injury to her right rotator cuff, both
knees and low back. (Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, No. 1.) Although
Burley was able to work modified duty after her injury, YDC did not make a
modified duty position available to her. (Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, No.
2.) Consequently, Burley did not work from July 10, 1996 through July 15, 1997.
(Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, No. 3.)
As a result of her injury, Burley filed for benefits under the workers'
compensation (WC) Act3 (WC benefits) and Act 534. DPW, however, denied both
requests on the grounds that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a
connection between Burley's injury and her employment. (Hearing Official's
Findings of Fact, No. 5.) Burley appealed the denial of WC benefits to the Bureau
of Workers' Compensation (Bureau). (Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, No. 6.)
She also appealed the denial of Act 534 benefits to the BHA. (Hearing Official's
Findings of Fact, No. 6.)
While her claim for WC benefits was pending before the Bureau,
Burley and DPW settled her Act 534 appeal (Act 534 Settlement) by agreeing that
they would be bound by the decision of the WC judge (WCJ) as to whether
Burley's disability was related to her employment. (Hearing Official's Findings of
Fact, No. 8.) In addition, Burley applied for, and received, UC benefits in the
amount of $7,707.00, representing twenty-one weeks of benefits from the week

3 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1041.4, 2501-2626.
2

ending February 22, 19974 to the week ending July 12, 1997. (Hearing Official's
Findings of Fact, No. 7.)
Ultimately, the WCJ found that Burley's injury was related to her
employment and awarded Burley WC benefits. (Hearing Official's Findings of
Fact, No. 10.) Consequently, pursuant to the Act 534 Settlement, Burley also
received her full, pre-injury salary under Act 534. However, because Burley was
receiving these Act 534 benefits, YDC's workers' compensation carrier, PHICO,
paid the full amount of Burley's WC benefits to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Commonwealth); PHICO took no offset for the UC benefits
previously paid to Burley. (Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, Nos. 11, 15; see
61 P.S. §951, Burley's brief at 9.)
Eventually, based on the Act 534 Settlement, DPW authorized the
payment to Burley of Act 534 benefits for the period of July 10, 1996 through July
15, 1997. (Hearing Official's Findings of Fact, No. 12.) However, in computing
the amount of benefits owed to Burley, DPW, through the Office of the Budget,
reduced Burley's Act 534 award by $7,707.00, the amount that she received in UC
benefits, and reimbursed this amount to the UC Trust Fund. (Hearing Official's
Findings of Fact, Nos. 13-14.)

4 The Hearing Official's Findings of Fact do not state why Burley applied for benefits as
of February 22, 1997.
3

Burley then filed an appeal with the BHA, seeking repayment of the
$7,707.00 deducted from her Act 534 award. Specifically, Burley asserted that the
$7,707.00 in UC benefits should have been deducted from her WC benefits rather
than her Act 534 benefits and that she remained entitled to her full salary under Act
534.
A BHA hearing official performed an administrative review of
Burley's appeal5 and concluded that the "timing and source" of the UC deduction
were unimportant. According to the hearing official, the Commonwealth was
entitled to reimbursement for the UC benefits and, relying on 61 P.S. §951, the
hearing official stated the reimbursement could be taken from any salary then or
thereafter due and owing. Additionally, the hearing official noted that, because of
an administrative error, Burley's UC benefits were never deducted from her WC
award, and, had she not subsequently been "awarded" Act 534 benefits, Burley
would have retained both her UC and WC benefits. The hearing official concluded
that because Burley was awarded her full salary under Act 534, DPW could deduct
her UC benefits from her Act 534 award. Accordingly, the hearing official
recommended that Burley's appeal be denied. On May 30, 2000, the Director of
the BHA issued an order adopting, in its entirety, the hearing official's
recommendation.

5 No administrative hearing was held because the parties stipulated to the facts.
4

Burley now appeals this order to our court.6 The sole issue before us
is whether DPW could deduct the $7,707.00 which Burley received in UC benefits
from her Act 534 award.
Burley does not dispute that she received $7,707.00 in UC benefits
and that this money should be reimbursed to the UC Trust Fund. Instead, she
contends the argument centers on who should take a credit for, and make the
reimbursement of, the UC benefits. Burley argues that, pursuant to section 204 of
the WC Act, 77 P.S. §71(a), PHICO should have offset the UC benefits from
Burley's WC benefits before paying the WC benefits to the Commonwealth.
Burley asserts that, because Act 534, unlike the WC Act, contains no language
authorizing the deduction of the amount of UC benefits, she should receive her full
salary without offset. We agree.
The purpose of Act 534 is to assure that those who undertake
employment in certain state institutions will be fully compensated in the event they
are disabled as the result of an act of a person confined in such institution. Mihok
v. Department of Public Welfare, 670 A.2d 227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). As such,
section 1 of Act 534 provides, in pertinent part,
Any employe of a ... Youth Development Center
under the Department of Public Welfare, who is
injured during the course of his employment by an act

6 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed,
whether constitutional rights were violated or whether necessary findings of fact are supported
by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
5

of any inmate or any person confined in such
institution ... shall be paid, by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, his full salary, until the disability arising
therefrom no longer prevents his return as an employe
of such department ... at a salary equal to that earned
by him at the time of his injury.
61 P.S. §951. Act 534 further provides,
During the time salary for such disability shall be paid
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania any
workmen's compensation received or collected for
such period shall be turned over to the Commonwealth
and paid into the General Fund, and if such payment
shall not be so made, the amount so due the
Commonwealth shall be deducted from any salary then
or thereafter becoming due and owing.
61 P.S. §951 (emphasis added).
Compare this with section 204 of the WC Act, which states, in
pertinent part, "if the employe receives unemployment compensation benefits, such
amount or amounts so received shall be credited as against the amount of the
award made under the provision[] of section[] ... 306[7] ...." 77 P.S. §71(a)
(emphasis added). The purpose of this section is to prevent a double recovery. See
Ferrero v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (CH & D Enterprises), 706 A.2d
1278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 556 Pa. 97,
726 A.2d 1058 (1999).

7 Burley was awarded WC benefits pursuant to section 306. (Burley's brief at 8.)
6

Also relevant here is section 804 of the UC Law, 43 P.S. §874. That
section provides, in pertinent part,
(a) Any person who by reason of his fault has received
any sum as compensation under [the UC] act to which
he was not entitled, [sic] shall be liable to repay to the
Unemployment Compensation Fund ... a sum equal to
the amount so received by him and interest....
(b)(1) Any person who other than by reason of his fault
has received with respect to a benefit year any sum as
compensation under this act to which he was not
entitled shall not be liable to repay such sum but shall
be liable to have such sum deducted from any future
[UC] compensation payable to him with respect to
such benefit year, or the three-year period immediately
following such benefit year ....
43 P.S. §874(a), (b)(1). Thus, the threshold issue in determining whether one must
make a repayment of UC benefits is whether one is at fault for the overpayment.8
Due process requires an evidentiary hearing on the issue of fault before requiring a
recipient to repay an overpayment, Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 309 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973), and it appears no such hearing was
held.9 Nevertheless, it is important to note that the UC Law specifically delineates

8 The word fault, as used in this section, "connotes an act to which blame, censure,
impropriety, shortcoming or culpability attaches. To find `fault,' there must be some finding by
the [UC] referee or Unemployment Compensation Board of Review concerning claimant's state
of mind." Teitell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 546 A.2d 706, 710 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1988) (citations omitted).
9 Although this issue is not before us, it is probable that Burley is not at fault. See Celia
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 383 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (holding
(Footnote continued on next page...)
7

those situations where a recipient of UC benefits is liable to repay those benefits
and those situations where overpayment merely is deducted from future UC
benefits.10
Here, the BHA hearing official stated that the Commonwealth is
entitled to reimbursement of the UC payments made to Burley and, relying on 61
P.S. §951, stated that the reimbursement of the UC payments can be taken from
any salary then or thereafter due and owing. The hearing official, relying on 77
P.S. §71, also stated that, because Burley was awarded her full salary under Act
534, the Commonwealth could deduct her UC benefits from this award. However,
these provisions do not provide this authority.
Contrary to the hearing official's statement, 61 P.S. §951 does not
authorize a deduction from an employee's salary for UC benefits; rather, that
provision addresses WC payments only. Similarly, 77 P.S. §71 provides no
authority for deducting UC payments from a salary paid pursuant to Act 534;
rather, that section of the WC Act only authorizes the offset of UC payments

(continued...)
that the mere application for other benefits is not "fault"). Thus, Burley would not be liable to
repay the $7,707.00; rather, she would be liable to have that amount deducted from future UC
benefits owed to her. See 43 P.S. §874(b)(1).
10 Compare 43 P.S. §874(a) (repayment required where recipient at fault) and 43 P.S.
§874(b)(3) (repayment required where recipient receives back wage award) with 43 P.S.
§874(b)(1) (repayment not required where recipient not at fault).
8

against WC benefits.11 Thus, under the applicable statutory authority, the only set-
off permitted under the circumstances here is to offset Burley's UC benefits from
her WC benefits pursuant to section 204 of the WC Act, 77 P.S. §71(a). However,
through no fault of Burley's, the WC carrier failed to make such an offset. Had
Burley not received Act 534 benefits, this offset would be "lost."12 DPW and its
WC carrier, PHICO, should not be able to correct their mistake through the lucky
coincidence of Burley being awarded Act 534 benefits.
Nevertheless, DPW asserts that the UC benefits must be deducted
from the Act 534 award to avoid a double recovery, contending that, otherwise
Burley will be unjustly enriched. We disagree.
Each of the statutes at issue here, Act 534, the WC Act and the UC
Law, has provisions to prevent a double recovery under certain circumstances.13

11 The hearing official also refers to 43 P.S. §864 as applicable law. However, this is
inapposite. That section deals with an employer who makes a deduction for UC benefits from a
back wage award. This case does not involve a back wage award.
12 Of course we recognize, however, that these UC benefits would be deducted from any
future UC benefits owed to Burley with respect to the same benefit year or the three-year period
immediately following that benefit year. See 43 P.S. §874(b)(1).
13 See e.g., section 1 of Act 534, 61 P.S. §951 (requiring that, during the time which an
employee receives salary for disability, any WC benefits received must be paid to the
Commonwealth and, if not paid, the amount owed shall be deducted from any salary due and
owing the employee), section 204 of the WC Act, 77 P.S. §71(a) (providing for an offset of UC
benefits from WC benefits), section 804 of the UC Law, 43 P.S. §874(a) (stating that anyone
who, through his or her own fault receives an overpayment in UC benefits is liable to repay the
sum), section 804 of the UC Law, 43 P.S. §874(b)(1) (stating that anyone who, through no fault
of his or her own, receives an overpayment in UC benefits is not liable to repay the sum, but
(Footnote continued on next page...)
9

Although Act 534 has a provision to prevent a double recovery in situations
involving WC benefits, it does not contain a similar provision relating to UC
benefits. It is a principle of statutory construction that where certain things are
specifically designated in a statute, all omissions should be understood as
exclusions. Latella v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d
464 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). Moreover, this court should be reluctant to add to a
statute a requirement that the legislature did not see fit to include. See Dively v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 720 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998), appeal denied, 559 Pa. 694, 739 A.2d 1059 (1999). Thus, Act 534 does not
permit DPW to offset Burley's UC benefits from her Act 534 award.14
Accordingly, we reverse.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge

(continued...)
such sum shall be deducted from future UC benefits), section 804 of the UC Law, 43 P.S.
§874(b)(3) (requiring that a deduction be made for UC benefits from any back wage award).
14 Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine. Unjust enrichment occurs when a person
"has and retains money or benefits, which in justice and equity belong to another." BLACK'S
LAW Dictionary 1535 (6th ed. 1990). Further, under the principle of unjust enrichment, "one
person should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at [the] expense of another ...."
BLACK'S LAW Dictionary 1535 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). While Burley may be enriched
here, it certainly cannot be said that the enrichment is unjust because Burley was in no way at
fault. Indeed, it was PHICO's error, failing to deduct the UC payments from the WC payment it
made, that resulted in the overpayment, and competing equities require that DPW's WC carrier,
PHICO, bear the $7,707.00 loss. In addition, arguably, DPW could receive a windfall from the
$7,707.00 credit because it does not belong to DPW but, rather, PHICO.
10

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nora Burley,
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1449 C.D. 2000
:
Pennsylvania Department of Public
:
Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2001, the order of the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,
dated May 30, 2000, at docket number 03-99-022, is hereby reversed.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge