Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sexton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 2009No. 1225 C.D. 2008Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

JUDGE BUTLER

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter. Because I agree that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) erred in reversing the order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) for a new utilization review, I would reverse the decision of the Board.

The purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act as a whole is “to benefit the workers of this Commonwealth; therefore, its provisions must be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian objectives, and borderline interpretations are construed in the injured party’s favor.” Gillette v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gillette v. WurstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Gazzola v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. HCR ManorCare v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API