Legal Opinion · Dissent

J.H. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 29, 2002Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion in this matter.

At the outset, I must register my dismay that the outcome of this case must turn on the arcane notion of “meretricio'us relationship.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1413 (1993) (emphasis added) defines the term meretricious as “of or relating to a prostitute; having a harlot’s traits.” The term carries extremely pejorative connotations, and its usage comes from another time in history. Both the dictionary definition and the context in which the term is used in section 307(7) of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Todd v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. C.F. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Hards Construction Co.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Doe v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API