Jones v. Rudenstein , 401 Pa. Super. 400 ( 1991 )

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,

concurring statement:

I wholeheartedly join Judge Kelly’s disposition of this case. I write only to address the concerns raised by Judge Johnson’s dissent.

As an intermediate appellate court, we are bound to follow the law as announced by our Supreme Court. Valley Peat & Humus v. Sunnylands, Inc., 398 Pa.Super. 400, 405, 581 A.2d 193, 195 (1990), petition for alloc. filed, 979 E.D.Alloc.Dkt.1990, Nov. 5, 1990. As a panel of this Court, we are also powerless to overturn en banc decisions.

The dissent correctly notes that this case is identical to Williams v. Gallagher, 396 Pa.Super. 584, 579 A.2d 403 (1990). That decision establishes the propriety of the analysis of Judge Kelly’s opinion. Were Williams a panel decision of this Court, stare decisis would lead me to approve of the analysis the dissent finds objectionable. As an en banc decision, Williams leaves us no choice but to employ that analysis. Therefore, I concur in the majority opinion.