Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Constructo Temps, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 8, 2006Published

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

  1. Luko v. Lloyd's LondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. American States Insurance v. State Auto InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Listino v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Stonebraker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Luvine v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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