Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reifsnyder v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 2005No. 4, 5 & 6 EAP 2004Published

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

  1. Bethlehem Structural Products v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Vernon)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Reifsnyder v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API