Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Case Example
In Chiconella v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Century Steel Erectors, Inc.), the Court applied the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (inclusion of certain items in a statute excludes those items which have been omitted) to hold that the Subsequent Injury Fund was not subject to penalties for a violation of the Act.
In doing so, we looked at the language of the Act, and noted that the Subsequent Injury Fund is not specifically included in the definition of the term "insurer" in the Act, which specifies only the State Workmen's Insurance Fund. 77 P.S. 701.
The Court reasoned that, because Section 401 of the Act specifically provides that the definition of "insurer" includes the State Workers' Insurance Fund, but does not mention the Subsequent Injury Fund, "the Legislature did not intend for the Subsequent Injury Fund to be treated like an insurer in proceedings under the Act." Chiconella, 845 A.2d at 935.