Permanent relocation from Pennsylvania to another state, standing alone, does not support permanent and voluntary withdrawal from the workforce.

The Commonwealth Court held that the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred as a matter of law in relying on the claimant’s permanent relocation to Nevada, standing alone, to support a determination that she permanently removed herself from the workforce. According to the court, such a relocation is specifically contemplated by and provided for in § 306 (b) (2) of the Act. The court also concluded that the judge could not solely rely on the claimant’s receipt of disability pension to support a suspension of benefits on the basis that she has permanently separated from the workforce. Citing precedent from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court pointed out there is no presumption of retirement arising from the fact that the claimant seeks or accepts a pension. Rather, the acceptance of a pension entitles the employer only to a permissive inference of retirement that must be considered within the totality of the circumstances.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 1, 2016}

_{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 © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}