Sexton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Gillette v. WurstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Gazzola v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- HCR ManorCare v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008