Legal Opinion

DePaul Concrete v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 19, 1999PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

The ultimate question posed by DePaul Concrete (DePaul) for resolution by the Court is when does an employer’s cause of action .in the nature of a claim for subrogation arise in order to determine which version of Section 1720 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1720, controls the outcome of this appeal. Section 1720 governs the allocation of proceeds of a third-party tort recovery and the subrogation rights of an employer or its workers’ compensation carrier with regard to such recovery in actions arising out of the maintenance or…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Bell v. Koppers Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Darr Construction Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Bible v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Updike v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Dillow v. Myers, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County2003
  5. Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API