Reifsnyder v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I would affirm based on the reasoning applied by the Commonwealth Court, which I believe implemented a plain-meaning interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. See Reifsnyder v. WCAB (Dana Corp.), 826 A.2d 16 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); accord Bethlehem Structural Products v. WCAB (Vernon), 789 A.2d 767 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Although the majority also lays claim to the application of a plain-meaning approach, I am not persuaded that this characterization is supported. In this regard, while on the one hand the majority gives effect to the substantial difference in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bethlehem Structural Products v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Vernon)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Reifsnyder v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003