Legal Opinion
Cohen v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 22, 2006No. 43 EAP 2005PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
Appeal was allowed to consider whether a workers’ compensation judge is bound to afford preclusive effect to a determination by the Philadelphia Civil Service Commission under Philadelphia Civil Service Regulation 32.
Claimant, David Cohen, was employed as a Philadelphia police officer. In February 2000, he suffered work-related injuries when he was struck by a motor vehicle while pursuing a suspect on foot. The City of Philadelphia, as his employer, recognized the injuries and issued a notice of compensation payable, thus implicating workers’ compensation benefits. See…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Rue v. K-Mart Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Dillon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- City of Philadelphia v. SchweikerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Bortz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Viener v. Jacobs (In Re Jacobs)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Weissberger v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- In Re Dcnc North Carolina I, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.