Opinion
September 23, 1980.
Workmen's compensation — Costs — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736 — Pa. R.A.P. 2741-2771 and 105 — Insurer's costs.
1. Provisions of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, for the awarding of costs including attorney fees, apply to successful claimants only and do not provide for an award of costs to an insurer. [580]
2. Liberally interpreting Pa. R.A.P. 2741-2771, as required by Pa. R.A.P. 105, litigation costs are properly denied an insurer successfully defending a claim under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, which has been interpreted so as to preclude the award of such costs to an insurer. [581-2]
Hearing before Judge BLATT, September 3, 1980.
Appeal, No. 1469 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Margaret L. Pollard, Widow of Walter H. Pollard, Deceased v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, No. A-73858.
Petition to the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed. Claimant appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Award reversed. Employer petitioned court for payment of fees paid and costs incurred in course of appeals. Held: Denied.
William Alvah Stewart, III, with him, Mark A. Willard, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin Mellott, for petitioner. Sandra Christianson, with her, Samuel J. Goldstein, for respondents.
Pursuant to Rules 2741-2771 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P. 2741-2771, the petitioner, Westinghouse Electric Corp., seeks an order taxing claimant Margaret Pollard, widow of Walter H. Pollard, for fees paid and costs incurred in the amount of $10,213.60 in the course of appeals by the petitioner to this Court and to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirming a referee's award of benefits to Mrs. Pollard under Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 411.
The Act provides for the awarding of certain costs in any contested case where liability has been contested in whole or in part, and such reasonable costs are defined as being for attorney's fees, witnesses, necessary medical examination and the value of unreimbursed lost time to attend the proceedings. This reimbursement, however, is provided for successful claimants only; and no provision at all is made for reimbursement of costs for the insurers. Section 440 of the Act, 77 P. S. § 996. Moreover, with respect to Section 440, this Court has found, on more than one occasion, "nothing invidious in the provision to successful claimants of their reasonable litigation costs and the denial of such costs to insurers which have successfully contested workmen's claims." Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corporation, 23 Pa. Commw. 517, 521, 353 A.2d 79, 81 (1976); Cairnbrook Coal Company v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 30 Pa. Commw. 620, 624, 374 A.2d 766, 768 (1977).
It is argued here, of course, that the filing and document reproduction costs sought by petitioner here, while not specifically provided for by the Act, are costs incurred on appeal for which reimbursement is provided by Pa. R.A.P. 2741-2771.
Pa. R.A.P. 105, however, requires that the Rules of Appellate Procedure "shall be liberally construed to serve the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every matter to which they are applicable." The rule further provides, moreover, that an appellate court may on its own motion in a particular case for good cause shown "disregard the requirements or provisions of any of these rules." This Court is constrained, therefore, to follow the obvious intent of The Workmen's Compensation Act when awarding or denying costs in appeals brought under that Act, the purpose of which, with respect to costs, as reflected in Section 440, and as previously interpreted by this Court in Bethlehem Mines Corporation, supra, and Cairnbrook Coal Company, supra, cannot be ignored.
"The purposes of Section 440 . . . are to deter unreasonable contests of workmen's claims and to ensure that claimants successful in litigation of their claims should receive compensation undiminished by the costs of litigation." Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines, supra; Cairnbrook Coal Company v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, supra. Here, the claimant's initial, and only, application for benefits under the Act was appropriate and reasonable in light of the judicial interpretation of the Act in effect in Pennsylvania at the time her action was commenced. See, e.g., Aluminum Company of America v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commw. 33, 380 A.2d 941 (1977); Maher v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 207 Pa. Super. 472, 218 A.2d 593 (1966).
We believe that, when the costs provision of the Act designates the awarding of costs in contested cases to successful claimants only and not to successful insurers, for this Court to award costs otherwise would be to thwart the declared purposes of the Act.
The insurer's request for costs incurred in these appeals, therefore, must be denied.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 1980, upon consideration of appellant's petition under Sections 2741-2771 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for fees and costs incurred on appeal to the Commonwealth Court and to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and after hearing argument thereon, the request is hereby denied.