Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Arlington Auto Body Service v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 17, 1985No. Appeal, No. 1955 C.D. 1983Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Judge Palladino :

I concur with the result only for the following reasons. In both Plasteel Products Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 405, 379 A.2d 908 (1977) and Crucible Steel Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 165, 415 A.2d 458 (1980), this Court held that the work place aggravation of a preexisting disease constitutes an “injury” under Section 301(c) of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act1 as long as the harm sustained is occupational in nature. To prove that such harm is occupational in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hayden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Plasteel Products Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Crucible Steel Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API