Legal Opinion

Borough of Heidelberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 2006PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION By

Senior Judge FLAHERTY.

The Borough of Heidelberg and Inserv-co Legal Services, Inc. (Employer) petitions for review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting Claimant’s Claim Petition seeking wage loss benefits. We affirm for the reasons set forth below.

At the hearing before the WCJ, Employer stipulated that Rowene Selva (Claimant) was an employee of the Borough of Heidelberg pursuant to Section 601 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. 1 Employer also stipulated that Claimant sustained a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Hoffmaster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Senco Products, Inc.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Republic Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. County of Allegheny v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Bley v. Com., Dept. of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Borough of Heidelberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. National Fiberstock Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Jamison v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Lebanon Valley Brethren Home v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Pope v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

5 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