Legal Opinion · Dissent

Snizaski v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 22, 2006No. 36 WAP 2004Published

1DissentJustice Newman

The Majority concludes that, “where, as here, an employer timely files a request for supersedeas pursuant to the Board’s regulations, it cannot be subject to a penalty award for failing *165to pay the underlying benefit during the pendency of the supersedeas petition.” (Opinion of Majority at 151, 891 A.2d at 1270.) I believe this conclusion is inconsistent with the governing provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)1 and must respectfully dissent.

The June 13, 2000 Order of the Board to pay Claimant compensation at a rate of $527.00 per week triggered the legal duty of Employer to begin…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baksalary v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Suburban Manor/Highland Hall Care Center v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API