Case Law Alerts
Not considering testimony that overtime work was expected results in incorrect AWW. Suspending benefits for pre-trial incarceration is improper under § 306 (A.1).
The Commonwealth Court reversed the decisions below. The court noted that the dispute as to the claimant’s average weekly wage was whether the claimant was expected to work more than 40 hours per week. According to the court, the judge credited the testimony of the employer on this issue, who stated that overtime would be guaranteed during the busy season in the summer. The court remanded the case for a recalculation of the claimant’s average weekly wage. As for the incarceration issue, the court held that the plain language of §306 (a.1) of the Act does not support a suspension of benefits for an incarceration that occurs before a conviction due to an inability to meet bail, and that to hold otherwise would be contrary to the humanitarian purposes of the Act.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2019
Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.