Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sakell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 15, 1994Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

Because I believe that Ridgaway Philips Health Care Center (Employer) did not satisfy its burden under the standards set forth in Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987), I must dissent.

Recently, we considered the Kachinski standard in Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (McAllister), — Pa.Commonwealth Ct. -,-, 648 A.2d 116, 118 (1994), stating:

Under Kachinski an employer who seeks to modify a claimant’s benefits on the basis that the claimant has recovered some or all of his ability must produce…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Lukens, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API