Zerby v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Triangle Building Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Norton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Merkle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- 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.