Legal Opinion · Dissent

Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 18, 2015Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

I disagree with the Majority’s determination that Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act1 (Act), pertaining to medical examinations and impairment ratings, violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s prohibition against the unlawful delegation of legislative power. As explained below, in Section 306(a.2) the General Assembly delegated initial impairment ratings to an independent, Pennsylvania-licensed, board-certified, clinically-active physician. Further, in situations such as the present case, ultimate impairment ratings are resolved by an…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Madrid v. St. Joseph HospitalNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
  3. INSURANCE FEDERATION OF PA v. Dept. of Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Christ the King Manor v. Commonwealth, Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Westmoreland Regional Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API