Gumro v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIX, Chief Justice.
The issue instantly presented is whether the Commonwealth Court properly concluded that the referee’s finding that Appellant’s injury was not work related was established by the evidence presented. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the referee’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and we reverse the Order of the Commonwealth Court.
This case stems from the following facts: Appellant, Lawrence Gumro, employed by Appellee, Emerald Mines Corporation, injured himself when he stepped in a hole at Appellee’s coal mine and twisted his left knee. He…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Majesky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- City of Harrisburg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Murphy v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
3Cited by45 opinions
- Lehigh County Vo-Tech School v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Minicozzi v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Harper & Collins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.