Yednock v. Hazle Brook Coal Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler., P. J.,
This is an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There was a compensation agreement entered into between the laborer and the employer, which the latter sought to terminate on the ground that claimant had recovered sufficiently to do light work as of May 6, 1930. The claimant denied that he had recovered sufficiently to do light work, and on March 6, 1931, the referee found as a fact that claimant was partially disabled, the extent of which was indeterminate, that the defendant company had offered claimant four different jobs, but he had refused to make any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fillip v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Gorman v. American Metal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
3Cited by6 opinions
- Babcock v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Jones v. Hazle Brook Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Hale v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Eckley v. RaeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Fegan v. MacCabeesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.