Constructo Temps, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I agree with the majority that penalties may not be assessed against the Workers’ Compensation Security Fund (Security Fund),1 and, therefore, I concur in part with the majority opinion. However, I also dissent in part because I disagree with the majority that penalties may not be assessed against Constructo Temps, Inc. (Employer) because it obtained insurance.
Despite stating that “penalties are not workers’ compensation benefits!,]” (majority op. at 57), the majority, nevertheless, begins its analysis “by examining the compensation…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Luko v. Lloyd's LondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- American States Insurance v. State Auto InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Listino v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Stonebraker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Luvine v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.