dissenting.
As I do not believe that the majority’s holding can be reconciled with this Court’s construction of section 319 in Poole v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Warehouse Club, Inc.), 570 Pa. 495, 810 A.2d 1182 (2002), and more fundamentally, with the policies underlying section 319’s right to subrogation, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court.
Section 319 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) provides, in relevant part, that:
Where the compensable injury is caused in whole or in part by the act or omission of a third party, the employer shall be subrogated to the right of the employe, his personal representative, his estate or his dependents, against such *176third party to the extent of the compensation payable under this article by the employer....
77 P.S. § 671. This rule is essentially designed to (1) prevent the employee from receiving a “double recovery” for the same injury, (2) ensure that the employer is not compelled to pay compensation due to the wrongful act of a third party, and (3) prevent a third party from escaping liability for its wrongful conduct. Dale Mfg. Co. v. Bressi, 491 Pa. 493, 421 A.2d 653, 654 (1980) (citation omitted); see also Poole, 810 A.2d at 1184 (Pa.2002) (noting above-stated purposes underlying section 319); Bigley v. Unity Auto Parts, Inc., 496 Pa. 262, 436 A.2d 1172, 1178 (1981) (plurality) (noting that subrogation is provided in section 319 to prevent a “double recovery”). It therefore follows that an employer seeking to establish a right to subrogation under section 319 must show that (1) it is compelled to make payments by reason of the wrongful conduct of a third party, and (2) the fund from which it seeks subrogation is for the same compensable injury for which the employer is liable under the Act. Dale Mfg., 421 A.2d at 655; see also Poole, 810 A.2d at 1184 (stating the above as the standard for subrogation); Griffin v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp.), 745 A.2d 61, 64 (Pa.Commw.1999) (stating that the above applies in cases involving wrongful conduct of a third party occurring subsequent to the original injury); Helms Express v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lemonds), 106 Pa.Cmwlth. 287, 525 A.2d 1269, 1271 (1987) (stating the above as the standard for subrogation).
Applying these standards here, it is clear that Brubacher is entitled to seek subrogation against Bridges’ recovery for his termination from Diesel. The record and administrative findings in this case reflect that Brubacher’s compensation obligation to Bridges increased from the partial disability rate of $245.26 to the total disability rate of $455.00 upon Diesel’s alleged unlawful termination of Bridges. Thus, Brubacher was clearly compelled to make compensation payments by reason of the wrongful act of a third party. See Poole, 810 A.2d at 1184-85 (stating this criterion and implicitly holding it satisfied); Helms Express, 525 A.2d at 1271-72 (same). In *177addition, both the workers’ compensation benefits paid to Bridges and an alleged portion of the settlement Bridges obtained from Diesel were provided to compensate Bridges for lost wages. Therefore, there is an identity between the fund created by the workers’ compensation arrangement and the fund created by the third-party settlement. See Poole, 810 A.2d at 1184-85 (stating this criterion and implicitly holding it satisfied); Helms Express, 525 A.2d at 1271-72 (same). Moreover, subrogation here is consistent with the three purposes underlying section 319 as it will (1) prevent Bridges from obtaining a “double recovery” by receiving compensation for wage losses from Brubacher and a civil recovery for wage losses from Diesel; (2) prevent Brubacher from being compelled to pay increased compensation based on Diesel’s alleged wrongful act; and (3) operate to ensure that Diesel will not escape liability because Diesel is held solely responsible for the increased compensation owed to Bridges. Consequently, I would find that subrogation is appropriate in this case, but only to the extent that Bridges recovered from Diesel for lost wages, and only in the amount that Bridges’ benefits increased as a result of his alleged unlawful termination by Diesel.1
The majority nevertheless concludes that section 319 does not authorize subrogation here because Diesel’s alleged unlawful termination did not cause Bridges’ back injury and thus, did not cause the “compensable injury” giving rise to Brubacher’s workers’ compensation obligation. However, we implicitly rejected a similar argument in Poole v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Warehouse Club, Inc.), 570 Pa. 495, 810 A.2d 1182 (2002), a case which the majority relegates to a mere footnote in its opinion. See Op. at 1277 n. 2. In Poole, an employee was injured in a slip and fall accident in the course of his employment and consequently received workers’ com*178pensation benefits. Id. at 1182. The employee subsequently filed a tort action seeking to recover damages from the third parties that were responsible for the slippery conditions, but due to an error on the part of his attorney, that action was dismissed and the tort claims lost. Id. at 1182-83. As a result, the employee filed a legal malpractice action against his attorney. Id. at 1182-83. The malpractice action was ultimately settled, and the employer sought subrogation against the settlement proceeds. Id. at 1183.
On appeal, this Court unanimously held that the proceeds of the legal malpractice action were subject to subrogation pursuant to section 319, in spite of the employee’s assertion that subrogation was inappropriate because the legal malpractice had not caused his physical injury. Id. at 1184, 1185. In finding as such, we necessarily concluded that under section 319, a “compensable injury” that is caused by a third party is not strictly limited to a claimant’s work-related injury, but rather also includes any wage loss that flows from the physical injury and for which the employer is required to provide compensation under the Act.2 See Richards v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 564 Pa. 375, 768 A.2d 852, 856, 857 n. 9 (2001) (“compensable injury” is not expressly defined in the Act, but rather “has acquired a particularized meaning through case law, which requires a claimant to demonstrate a causal relationship between the injury and employment to establish compensability,” and “[e]ven with the necessary *179causal relationship, an injury is not compensable unless it results in some disability, i.e., a loss of earning power”); cf. Mitchell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Steve’s Prince of Steaks), 572 Pa. 380, 815 A.2d 620, 624 (2003) (“disability” for workers’ compensation purposes is synonymous with the loss of earning power attributable to a work-related injury). Significantly, we also noted in Poole that the result we reached was mandated by the underlying functions of section 319 to make the employee whole without conferring a “double benefit” and to prevent the employer from being made to pay benefits for the wrongful act of a third party. Id. at 1185.
Here, as in Poole, and for the reasons stated above, I believe that subrogation is appropriate in spite of the fact that the third party’s act did not itself cause the claimant’s physical injury. See id. at 1184. To conclude otherwise, as the majority does, is not only inconsistent with Poole, but also leads to the unjust result that Bridges will realize a “double recovery” of both workers’ compensation benefits and a civil recovery that allegedly includes payment for lost wages. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1) (stating presumption that, in matters of statutory construction, “the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable”). Moreover, it essentially ignores cases decided in the Commonwealth that have broadly interpreted section 319 in accord with its purposes. See Brown v. Travelers Ins. Co., 434 Pa. 507, 254 A.2d 27, 29 (1969) (plurality) (“employer” as used in section 319 must include “insurer” so as to allow insurer to subrogate); Donaldson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pennsylvania Workers’ Comp. Sec. Fund), 728 A.2d 994, 994-95 (Pa.Commw.1999) (“employer” as used in section 319 must include workers’ compensation security fund so as to allow fund to subrogate); Helms Express, 525 A.2d at 1271-72 (proceeds of third-party medical malpractice action subject to subrogation although malpractice was not the work-related injury); Powell v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 99 Pa.Cmwlth. 575, 514 A.2d 241, 243-44 (1986) (same); see also Graham v. Liberty Mut. Group, No. 97-4507, 1998 WL 961376, at *8-*9, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20026, at *25-*26 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 15, 1998) *180(pre-Poole decision holding proceeds of third-party legal malpractice settlement subject to subrogation although legal malpractice was not the work-related injury); cf. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. v. Ira Berger & Sons, 470 Pa. 239, 368 A.2d 282, 284-85 (1977) (allowing compensation, and implicitly subrogation, where there was a causal relationship between the work-related injury and medical complication caused by chiropractor); Hometz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 277 Pa. 40, 120 A. 662, 663 (1923) (allowing compensation, and implicitly subrogation, where there was a causal relationship between the work-related finger injury and the employee’s death due to a heart complication).
I note that my recommended application of section 319 in this case is prompted to a significant degree by the unique factual circumstances of this case, where the third party did not cause the work-related physical injury but did cause a wage loss that was precipitated by the work-related injury. See Dale Mfg. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 34 Pa. Cmwlth. 31, 382 A.2d 1256, 1259 (1978) (where the third-party conduct occurs after the original injury, the injury for which subrogation is claimed must be examined with “closer scrutiny”), aff'd sub nom. Dale Mfg. Co. v. Bressi, 491 Pa. 493, 421 A.2d 653 (1980); see also Maitland Bros. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Moser), 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 421, 499 A.2d 713, 716 (1985) (same). I would therefore hold that section 319 of the Act allows Brubacher to recover from the proceeds of Bridges’ third-party settlement with Diesel, but only to the extent that Bridges recovered wage losses from Diesel and only in the amount that Bridges’ benefits increased as a result of Diesel’s alleged wrongful act. However, because the record does not contain any financial details relating to Bridges’ settlement with Diesel, I cannot ascertain the exact amount of Bridges’ wage loss recovery. Thus, I would remand the matter to permit Brubacher the opportunity to prove whether wage losses were included in the settlement Bridges obtained from Diesel.
Justice NEWMAN joins.. In a dissenting opinion below, Judge Leadbetter, who was joined by Judge Pellegrini, also advocated that subrogation be permitted here. Brubacher Excavating v. WCAB (Bridges), 774 A.2d 1274, 1281 (Pa. Commw.2001) (Leadbetter, J., dissenting) (opining that Brubacher was entitled to recover because there was a causal relationship between Bridges' back injury and the alleged harm done by Diesel, and because Diesel's alleged act compelled Brubacher to increase the amount of compensation it provided to Bridges.)
. While the majority attempts to distinguish Poole from the instant case by emphasizing that the employee's success on his legal malpractice claim hinged on his ability to establish the malfeasance of the underlying tortfeasor and thus, the "subrogation in the context of a legal malpractice action satisfied the statutory requirement of establishing that a third party caused the compensable injury,” Op. at 1277 n. 2, the fact remains that the third-party attorney’s legal malpractice in Poole did not cause the employee’s work-related injury and yet we permitted the employer to be subrogated to the rights of the employee against the attorney. See 77 P.S. § 671 ("Where the compensable injury is caused in whole or in part by the act or omission of a third party, the employer shall be subrogated to the right of the employe ... his personal representative, his estate or his dependents, against such third party ....”) Accordingly, in my view, Poole clearly indicates that the third party from whom subrogation is appropriate need not have caused the employee's physical injury.