The WC Act serves as "accident insurance," by paying 66⅔%of a totally disabled employee's pre-injury wages in exchange for her consent to relinquish all other actions against her employer. Soppick v. Borough of West Conshohocken, 6 A.3d 22, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The WC Act is remedial in nature and liberally construed in favor of the injured employee to achieve its humanitarian objectives.
Mr. Soppick also unsuccessfully sued the Borough based upon these injuries under the Pennsylvania Heart and Lung Benefits Act. See Soppick v. Borough of West Conshohocken, 6 A.3d 22 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010).Mr. Soppick does not agree with his own attorney's legal position on appeal. He believes that the state court's entry of summary judgment in March 2013 was erroneous, and that he should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that the fines awarded were excessive and the amount he owes the Borough is actually less than even $60,000.
This Court ordered further briefing and asked the parties to address whether the December 20th letter is an adjudication and to address the merits of Breyan's claim that he is entitled to benefits under the HLA.Id. When reviewing a question of law, this Court's scope of review is plenary and our review is de novo . Soppick v. Borough of West Conshohocken , 6 A.3d 22, 24 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). In his brief, Breyan asserts that DCNR's December 20th letter constituted an "invalid adjudication under the Administrative Agency Law" because DCNR refused to provide him with a hearing to determine his eligibility for HLA benefits.
The facts are not in dispute. This appeal involves a pure legal question over which our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo . Soppick v. Borough of West Conshohocken , 6 A.3d 22, 24 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). This case of first impression raises an issue of statutory construction.