Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Nina M. Johnson v. Clearfield County Vo-Tech School, No. A-71633.
William A. Hebe, with him Michael S. Ramage, and Spencer, Gleason & Hebe, for petitioner.
Raymond F. Keisling, with him Will & Keisling, for respondents.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Blatt and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge DiSalle.
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 527]
This is a petition for review filed by Nina M. Johnson (Claimant) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 528]
Appeal Board (Board) dated May 5, 1977. Claimant challenges that part of the order which in effect found that she had not suffered a loss of earning power because of her inability to perform a second job.
During the 1972-1973 school year, Claimant was employed full-time by the Clearfield County Vo-Tech School as a clothing design teacher at an annual salary of $7,150. Additionally, she was employed to teach adult education classes two nights a week for which she received a salary of $1,191 per year. On January 22, 1973, Claimant slipped and fell in the teacher's parking lot, sustaining serious back injuries. After the accident, she returned to teach her daytime classes, but on the advice of her doctor, she did not resume teaching the adult education classes and has not done so since the accident.
In accordance with an escalator clause in Claimant's contract, her compensation during the 1973-1974 school year for her daytime teaching duties was raised from $7,150 to $8,370, or from $210 per week to $227.45 per week. Similarly, for the 1974-1975 school year, Claimant's compensation for her daytime job was raised to $260.15 per week. The Board's order of May 5, 1977, deleted any prior orders or awards entered by the referee or the Board insofar as they were inconsistent with it, and awarded Claimant compensation for partial disability from January 22, 1973 to September 3, 1974. The order suspended compensation after September 3, 1974, since Claimant had resumed her full-time teaching job and was receiving wages in excess of her average weekly wage prior to the accident.
It is Claimant's contention that application of Section 306(b) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 512, to the facts of this case requires that additional compensation be afforded her. The particular
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 529]
language of Section 306(b) relied on by ...