DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 2450 C.D. 1985
Citation Numbers: 100 Pa. Commw. 230, 514 A.2d 316
Judges: Barbieri, Craig, Doyle
Filed Date: 9/2/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
This is an appeal by Paul Whitesel (Claimant) from an order of the Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referees decision denying
Claimant on appeal takes the position, as he did below, that the term “indefinite weeks” varied the amount of compensation to be paid or the period of time in which compensation was to be paid, and thus it violated Section 407 of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act,
Section 512 states that compensation for partial disability “shall be paid during the period of such partial disability . . . but for not more than five hundred weeks.” And Section 407, governing compensation agreements, provides in pertinent part:
[A]ny agreement . . . varying the amount to be paid or the period during which compensation shall be payable as provided in this act, shall be wholly null and void.
Claimant asserts that the instant case is controlled by our decision in Leaseway Systems, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 520, 418 A.2d 796 (1980). In Leaseway the parties entered into an agreement which provided that the employer would pay compensation-beginning for the week of December 6, 1972 but that the question of continuing disability beyond January 1, 1974 would be left open. Thus, in Leaseway, the agreement if upheld would have permitted the parties to terminate payment prior to the expiration of 500 weeks without resort to further proceedings as required under the Act. We refused to allow such a result. In the instant case, however, the full 500 weeks has run. Claimants situation is thus clearly distinguishable from that in Leaseway. Under the very statute from which Claimants rights spring, i.e. Section 306(b), there is a time restriction which operates to limit by law his benefits. And in the same way that Claimants entitlement to benefits cannot be cut off prematurely without resorting to the appropriate provisions of the Act, see Leaseway, neither can his entitlement to benefits be extended under the provisions of Section 306(b) beyond what that Section allows. It is thus clear that “indefinite weeks” cannot mean that
Accordingly, we agree with the Board that Claimants petition was properly dismissed and thus affirm its order.
Order
Now, September 2, 1986, the order of the Workmens Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-89482, dated August 12, 1985 is hereby affirmed.
Claimant was originally, paid $65.01 for his work-related disability.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended.