Chavis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSilvestri, Senior Judge
I concur with the majority’s disposition of the first issue and conclusion that Claimant had constructive notice of Employer’s job referrals. However, I must dissent as to the ultimate reversal of the Board and conclusion that, upon review, Claimant “could not perform the duties” of the proffered positions.
The majority relies upon language in Kachinski to the effect that an employer must produce “medical evidence describing the claimant’s capability” and “vocational evidence classifying the job” and then underscores that “[from] such evidence it will be up to the referee to determine whether…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mrs. Smith's Frozen Foods Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Morgan v. Giant Markets, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Brothers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Smith v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.