“Courts are not to engraft language to the act not included by the General Assembly to remedy a perceived infirmity, as doing so is not the courts’ role.” These words were dicta in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2021 decision of Keystone RX v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (Compservices/AmeriHealth Casualty Services). If only courts everywhere would heed such direction. We may soon see if the Supreme Court will follow its own advice.

One glaring example of a court following this axiom of jurisprudence is the recent Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision of Columbia County Commissioners v. Rospendowski (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board). In Rospendowski, the court was faced with a matter of first impression as to “whether an employer can offset an overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits paid for one work-related injury through a credit against an award of benefits for a subsequent work-related injury.” This issue was compounded by the fact that the overpayment of wage-loss benefits for the first work injury was created through the “fault” and unjust enrichment of the claimant. The court answered the question with a resounding “no.”