Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zerby v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully dissent. David Zerby (Claimant) argues that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) erred in calculating his average weekly wage (AWW) pursuant to section 309(d) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 582(d). Claimant maintains that the WCAB should have calculated his AWW pursuant to section 309(d.1) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 582(d.1), The majority agrees with the WCAB, but I agree with Claimant.

I. Statutory Provisions

Sections 309(d) and 309(d.1) of the Act, 77 P.S. §§ 782(d) & 782(d.1),…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Triangle Building Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Norton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Merkle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Easter Seal Society for Handicapped Children & Adults v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

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