Markle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MONTEMURO, Justice.
This case is about whether, in a workmen’s compensation reinstatement hearing, an employer’s burden of showing job availability is met by a showing that the job is within claimant’s work-related medical restrictions solely. We granted allocatur, as it is a matter of first impression, to determine *151whether an employer is required to take into consideration pre-existing medical restrictions which are unrelated to claimant’s work injury, in meeting its burden of proof on job availability. Because the Commonwealth Court correctly decided this issue, we affirm.
The parties…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Northeastern Hospital v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Ramich v. Worker's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Newcomer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- LTV Steel Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Costello)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.