Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stiles v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 13, 2004Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

In this issue of first impression, the majority determines that a claimant who suffers from mental impairment may not petition for review of a Workers’ Compensation Compromise and Release (C & R) Agreement on grounds that-she was incapable of understanding its ramifications because the doctrine of collateral estoppel forecloses this relief to any such-claimant as a matter of law by virtue of the very finding she seeks to have reviewed. I believe that such a result is both absurd and unjust; therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

In this case, Marcella…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bortz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Yonkers v. Donora BoroughCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Hartner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. North Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

1 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