Stiles v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Bortz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Yonkers v. Donora BoroughCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Hartner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- North Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.