Legal Opinion

Terek v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 6, 1995PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We allowed this appeal to review the Commonwealth Court’s determination that the testimony presented by the employer to establish the claimant’s full recpvery was equivocal. We now reverse.

Thomas Terek was a Division Manager for Somerset Welding and Steel, Inc., whose role was to oversee and motivate the division, which included design, manufacturing, and sales. In the performance of these duties, Terek had occasion to climb on and under trucks, to lift objects up to fifty pounds, and to travel by car approximately one week per month to customer sites to resolve…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Lewis v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Campbell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Jordan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Martin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. US Airways v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Johnston)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

11 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