A common scenario at Pennsylvania Workers` Compensation Cases involves a worker being injured by the negligence of a third party. For example, a truck driver is injured in an accident caused by another driver. In situations where a third party may be liable for injuries compensated by Pennsylvania workers` compensation benefits, the Pennsylvania Legislature has granted employers and their insurance company the right to “under-tax.” Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers` Compensation Act deals with repeal and notes in a relevant section that the Supreme Court approved the worker`s interpretation of Section 319 and stated that “staggered payments” were limited to lost-wage benefits, since future medical payments were “unknown at the time of billing.” The Court of Justice found that there was no certainty that medical benefits were being paid, let alone paid in the form of “future payments,” which the Court characterized as stable and predictable. Thus, the Tribunal found that after the payment of a third-party debt, an air carrier could not claim a credit on future medical payments, since they were not “payments” within the meaning of the law. In Whitmoyer, the Supreme Court held that an insurer`s right to a future workers` compensation credit after a third party settlement applies only to compensation, not medical benefits. The complainant in Whitmoyer successfully argued that the language of Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers` Compensation Act, which inserts future credit for “future staggered payments,” applied only to discrete, bi-professional compensation checks and not to more uncertain and potentially much less frequent medical bills. As a matter of absolute practice, the right to compensation of any worker through the Newtonian prism of the possible involvement of third party liability should be considered, and employers and insurers should be encouraged to put complainants and lawyers on the resignation as soon as possible to avoid being left between song selections on the dance floor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has pitted an employer`s assignment rights against the balance of recovery when an applicant receives a transaction or distinction from a third party for a violation of his or her work. In a monumental decision, Whitmoyer v. Workers` Compensation Appeal Board (Mountain Country Meats), 186 A.3d 947 (Pa.