subrogation claim in Pennsylvania

2024Joella, 221 A.3d at 680 (quoting trial court’s opinion reliance on Rausch, supra; emphasis added).

2023Joella, 221 A.3d at 680 (quoting trial court’s opinion reliance on Rausch, supra; emphasis added).

1955A mere volunteer . . . who, having no interest to protect, without any legal or moral obligation to pay, and without an agreement for subrogation, or an assignment of the debt, pays the debt of another is not entitled to subrogation, the payment in his case absolutely extinguishing the debt.’ ” Sheldon on Subrogation, sec. 240, quoted in Commonwealth Trust Co., Trustee (No. 1), 247 Pa. 508, 515 , states the principle in these words: “‘The doctrine of subrogation is not applied for the mere stranger or volunteer who has paid the debt of another without any assignment or agreement for subrogatio

1941Thus one who discharges an encumbrance upon property which he has no interest in having relieved, is not thereby subrogated to the rights of the holder of the encumbrance.......’ He also quotes from Sheldon on Subrogation, sec. 240, as follows: ‘The doctrine of subrogation is not applied for the mere stranger or volunteer who has paid the debt of another without any assignment or agreement for subrogation, being under no legal obligation to make the payment and not being compelled to do so for the preservation of any rights or property of his own’ ”: In re Account of Commonwealth Trust Co., Tr

2024Section 406.1(a) of the Act mandates: “Interest shall accrue on all due and unpaid compensation at the rate of [10%] per annum.” 77 P.S. § 717.1.8 In Gattuso v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (McKeesport Candy Co.), 646 A.2d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), this Court explained: In Good Shepherd Workshop v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Caffrey), . . . 609 A.2d 915 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1992), a case indistinguishable from this, a referee ordered payment of a subrogation claim held by [the insurer] for the claimant’s work-related medical bills it had paid while litigation was pending.

1994In Good Shepherd Workshop v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Caffrey), 148 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 164, 609 A.2d 915 (1992), a case indistinguishable from this, a referee ordered payment of a subrogation claim held by Blue Cross for the claimant’s work-related medical bills it had paid while litigation was pending.

2024Section 319 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 671; Frankford Hospital, 820 A.2d at 872 .

2005Id. at 871 . ¶ 8 In the case before us, not only did PEBTF fail to assert its subrogation claim with reasonable diligence, but it affirmatively stated in both its current brochure and in a letter from its representative that it did not have a subrogation claim.

2018Id. at 1111 .

2018Id. at 1111 .

2017Claimant argues that this above-reviewed precedent supports his construction of Section 319, i e., that each “compen-sable injury” must be separately examined in a subrogation analysis. 10 It is the employer’s burden to “explain the effect of the medical [malpractice] upon the original compensable injury.” Dale Manufacturing Company, 421 A.2d at 655 .

1987In Dale Manufacturing at 497, 421 A.2d at 655 , our Supreme Court noted that the employer failed to offer medical evidence explaining the effect of the medical treatment upon the original compensable injury nor did the employer request the appointment of an independent medical examiner.

2016Id. at 168 .

2016Hence, [Kintz] has not been made whole, and for this reason Nationwide’s subrogation claim must fail. -3- J-A08026-16 Id. at 168 .

2007For example, in Jacobs v. Northeastern Corp., 416 Pa. 417 , 206 A.2d 49 (1965), this Court quoted the United States Supreme Court indicating “ft]he right of subrogation is not founded on contract.

2007For example, in Jacobs v. Northeastern Corp., 416 Pa. 417 , 206 A.2d 49 (1965), this Court quoted the United States Supreme Court indicating “ft]he right of subrogation is not founded on contract.

2006This argument is based on remarks made by our Supreme Court in Darr Construction, supra. In that case, our Supreme Court held that an employer/insurer does not have a subrogation claim against loss of consortium settlements or awards under Section 319 of the Act, as loss of consortium claims are separate and independent from the injured worker’s third-party tort action.

2006Id. at 408 , 715 A.2d at 1080 .

2005Scalice, 854 A.2d at 993-94 . ¶ 5 In the instant case, because Wimer made no objection to the subrogation claim for the small amount of benefits paid ($186) before it was clear that PEBTF was no longer an ERISA plan, I believe that the majority was correct in deciding this case on the issue of the timing of the payments and not reaching those issues listed above.

2005Scalice, 854 A.2d at 993-94 . ¶ 5 In the instant case, because Wimer made no objection to the subrogation claim for the small amount of benefits paid ($186) before it was clear that PEBTF was no longer an ERISA plan, I believe that the majority was correct in deciding this case on the issue of the timing of the payments and not reaching those issues listed above.

1998We commenced our analysis by stating that “this case must be resolved on subrogation principles.... ” Wolfe, 534 Pa. at 74 , 626 A.2d at 525 .

1998We commenced our analysis by stating that “this case must be resolved on subrogation principles.... ” Wolfe, 534 Pa. at 74 , 626 A.2d at 525 .

1986It would be much more equitable in all cases to require the city as well as the employe to bear a pro rata share of the expenses. 180 Pa. Superior Ct. at 57-8 , 118 A.2d at 240 .

1986It would be much more equitable in all cases to require the city as well as the employe to bear a pro rata share of the expenses. 180 Pa. Superior Ct. at 57-8 , 118 A.2d at 240 .

1981This has not been changed by section 303(b) legislation and is in keeping with the equitable nature of the doctrine of subrogation: Meehan v. Philadelphia, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 659 , 136 A. 2d 178 (1957); Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Del Vecchio, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 244 , 351 A. 2d 691 (1976); Arendas v. Rich & Co., 220 F. Supp. 957 (W.D.

1981This has not been changed by section 303(b) legislation and is in keeping with the equitable nature of the doctrine of subrogation: Meehan v. Philadelphia, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 659 , 136 A. 2d 178 (1957); Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Del Vecchio, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 244 , 351 A. 2d 691 (1976); Arendas v. Rich & Co., 220 F. Supp. 957 (W.D.

1967Dixon Herman, J., reviewed the cases of our own and other jurisdictions and we adopt his careful analysis: “In Michigan, in 1954, in Michigan Medical Service v. Sharpe, 339 Mich. 574 , 64 N.W. 2d 713 (1954), the Supreme Court of that State had before it the case of one Sharpe who had been injured in an automobile accident and who had received medical payments from Michigan Medical Service under a policy or contract containing a subrogation clause.

1967Dixon Herman, J., reviewed the cases of our own and other jurisdictions and we adopt his careful analysis: “In Michigan, in 1954, in Michigan Medical Service v. Sharpe, 339 Mich. 574 , 64 N.W. 2d 713 (1954), the Supreme Court of that State had before it the case of one Sharpe who had been injured in an automobile accident and who had received medical payments from Michigan Medical Service under a policy or contract containing a subrogation clause.

1967“We conclude that the subrogation clause in the policy here in question is valid and enforceable and the plaintiffs have by their own act made it impossible for them to comply with its terms and thus being unable to execute the subrogation agreement, judgment must be entered against them and in favor of the defendant.” See also: Occupational Disease Act of 1939, June 21, P. L. 566, No. 284, §319, as amended, 77 PS §1419; Magill v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 342 , 228 A. 2d 22 (1967).

1967“We conclude that the subrogation clause in the policy here in question is valid and enforceable and the plaintiffs have by their own act made it impossible for them to comply with its terms and thus being unable to execute the subrogation agreement, judgment must be entered against them and in favor of the defendant.” See also: Occupational Disease Act of 1939, June 21, P. L. 566, No. 284, §319, as amended, 77 PS §1419; Magill v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 342 , 228 A. 2d 22 (1967).

1967Co., 60 Ill.

1967Co., 60 Ill.

1964In these cases, the suits of plaintiffs’ insured had proceeded to trials and adversary verdicts and judgments against the tortfeasors and, in the Saber case, the letter from plaintiff’s insurer did not “in any way suggest the possibility of a subrogation claim.” In the present case, as in the case of Smith v. Yellow Cab Co., 288 Pa. 85 , the case was settled between plaintiff’s insured and the tortfeasor without trial.

1931Such a course was actually adopted in the case of Smith to the use of McDonnell and the Maryland Casualty Co. v. Yellow Cab Co., 87 Pa. Superior Ct. 143 , affirmed in 288 Pa. 85 , and although not specially referred to nor approved in the opinion, it was not disapproved, and we believe it to be in accord with proper practice.

1950The precise question was first before the courts in Ellis v. Atlantic Refining Co., 309 Pa. 287 , 163 A. 531 , on appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

1950The precise question was first before the courts in Ellis v. Atlantic Refining Co., 309 Pa. 287 , 163 A. 531 , on appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

1942The doctrine of subrogation is, in any event, not applicable, partly because the mortgagee received only part payment of the debt (as to which see Gildner v. First National Bank and Trust Co. of Bethlehem, 342 Pa. 145, 154 , 19 A. 2d 910, 914 ; Stofflet v. Kress, 342 Pa. 332, 336 , 21 A. 2d 31, 32 ) and partly because it was not clearly shown whether the payments were made on behalf of the lessee’s father, who was the mortgagor, or on lessee’s own behalf as tenant of the property, and, if the latter, whether he was compelled, by reason of a threatened foreclosure, to make the payments in order

1897As to the general doctrine of subrogation, see Croft v. Moore, 9 Watts, 451 , and Mosier’s Appeal, 56 Pa. 76 .

2024Section 406.1(a) of the Act mandates: “Interest shall accrue on all due and unpaid compensation at the rate of [10%] per annum.” 77 P.S. § 717.1.8 In Gattuso v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (McKeesport Candy Co.), 646 A.2d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), this Court explained: In Good Shepherd Workshop v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Caffrey), . . . 609 A.2d 915 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1992), a case indistinguishable from this, a referee ordered payment of a subrogation claim held by [the insurer] for the claimant’s work-related medical bills it had paid while litigation was pending.

2023Annunziata, 838 A.2d at 605 .

2022In so doing, we relied on Bumbarger v. Bumbarger, 155 A.2d 216 (Pa. Super. 1959), in which the Superior Court held that an employer’s subrogation claim could not be defeated by “arbitrarily apportioning” a claimant’s third-party recovery as damages for pain and suffering.