George Lucey v. Vy-Cal Plastics Corp. (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-199-98] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT GEORGE LUCEY : : : v. : : : WORKMEN S COMPENSATION APPEAL : BOARD (VY-CAL PLASTICS & PMA : GROUP) : : : APPEAL OF: VY-CAL PLASTICS : 16 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1998 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on October 17, 1997 at 760 C.D. 1996 reversing in part and affirming in part the decision entered on February 29, 1996 by the Workmen s Compensation Appeal Board at A94-0049 affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the referee ARGUED: October 20, 1998 VY-CAL PLASTICS CORPORATION, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : WORKMEN S COMPENSATION APPEAL : BOARD (LUCEY), : : Appellee : 17 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1998 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on October 17, 1997 at 891 C.D. 1996 reversing in part and affirming in part the decision entered on February 29, 1996 by the Workmen s Compensation Appeal Board at A94-0049 affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the referee ARGUED: October 20, 1998 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: July 9, 1999 In my view, to allow claimant s attorney to settle with the medical provider and retain the difference for his benefit, or for the benefit of his client, would subvert the policy and scheme of the Workers Compensation Act. Under the Act, a claimant is compensated only for a decrease in earning power occasioned by a work-related injury, see Inglis House v. Workmen s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 142, 634 A.2d 592, 595-96 (1993), and the obligation of an employer or its insurer related to medical treatment of a claimant is defined by reasonable and necessary medical expenses resulting from the work-related injury, see 77 P.S. ยง531. In the present case, the $30,000 difference between the costs of claimant s medical treatment and the amount paid by employer reflects neither a loss of earnings by claimant, nor an amount actually paid for the medical services he received. Therefore, the majority quite properly holds that employer is entitled to a credit for this money against claimant s future indemnity and medical benefits. Mr. Justice Zappala joins this concurring opinion. [J-199-98] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
