Legal Opinion

Yednock v. Hazle Brook Coal Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 16, 1933No. Appeal 289PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Fillip v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Gorman v. American Metal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Babcock v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Jones v. Hazle Brook Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Hale v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Eckley v. RaeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Fegan v. MacCabeesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

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