Legal Opinion

Bauman v. Spokas

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 9, 1941No. Appeal, 302PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The judgment from which the employer in this workmen’s compensation case has appealed cannot be sustained as entered. The main difficulty is that no one seems to have paid any attention to the important fact that the legislature expressly provided in Section 306(c) of the reenacting ,and amending Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 4, 1937, P. L. 1552, 77 PS §513, that permanent “loss of the function” of a joint or joints of a finger of an employee, caused by an accident sustained in the course of his employment, should be considered a “permanent injury” within the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lente v. LuciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Matkosky v. Midvale CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Sustar v. Penn Smokeless Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Flood v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Olinsky v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Yaklich v. Union Collieries Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Melfi v. Dick Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Moran v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  4. Wills v. Stineman Coal & Coke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Niemi v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

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