McGlasson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Colins:

The majority points out that the term “wages” is not defined within Section 309 of The Pennsylvania Work*492mens Compensation Act.1 The majority then concludes that we must interpret the contract and “determine whether the parties intended to include the signing bonus in the calculation of the average weekly wage.”

The contract clearly evidences the parties’ intent to set the signing bonus apart from the salary paid to Mc-Glasson. It is equally clear that the intention to do so is for purposes of renewal of the contract in future years. Stated in another way, the…