Legal Opinion

Meadville Forging Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 11, 1999PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOYLE, Judge.

Meadville Forging Company and Trans-General Services Company (collectively, Employer) appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) that granted the claim petition of Christopher Hawes (Claimant).

Claimant began working for Employer on March 15, 1995, as a “C.N.C. operator.” 1 In this capacity, Claimant placed parts inside a chuck and programmed a computer to cut material needed to make parts. Claimant’s work required him to grasp and manipulate metal parts with his hands and exposed him to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Steglik v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Joy Global, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Advance Auto Parts & Sedgwick CMS v. WCAB (Morton)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  4. Meadville Forging Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Steglik v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API