Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 22, 2003Published

1DissentJustice Eakin

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that § 309(d) is ambiguous, requiring us to engage in statutory interpretation to fashion a desired result for unfortunate cases such as appellant’s. Like it or not, the statute provides a simple and explicit formula for calculation of wages, and there is no exception for the present scenario; an oversight which leads to a harsh result is not the equivalent of ambiguity. See Scanlon v. DPW, Dept. of Aging, 739 A.2d 635, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth.1999) (statute is ambiguous or unclear if its language is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations).

In…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. MacDougall v. MacDougallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Frost v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Scanlon v. Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Energy Pipeline Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API