Legal Opinion · Dissent

Geriatric & Medical Centers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 23, 1994Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Because the first paragraph of section 413(a) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act)1 states that a referee may review and set aside a Notice of Compensation Payable at any time where it is in any material respect incorrect and because Geriatric & Medical Centers (Employer) has proven that section 3 of the Ridesharing Act2 legally precludes the payment of compensation benefits to Theresa Facey (Claimant) and, thus, makes the Notice of Compensation Payable null and void, I would reverse.

The majority has reached the opposite result by relying upon several…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Rollins Outdoor Advertising v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Leaseway Systems, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Fiedler v. National Tube Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  5. County of Schuylkill v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

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

Powered by the Exa API