Legal Opinion · Dissent

Beisswanger v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 28, 2002Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge DOYLE.

I respectfully dissent.

The critical issue in this appeal does not concern the discovery rule in Section 315 of the Workers Compensation Act (Act),1 77 P.S. § 602, or whether it should be applied to a specific loss injury under Section 306(c)(22) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 513(22), for a “serious and permanent disfigurement ... of such a character as to produce an unsightly appearance.... ” Clearly it is not applicable. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Siekierka), 708 A.2d 132, 135 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998).

Similarly, the issue is not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Bellefonte Area School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. City of Philadelphia v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Kmart v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. East Coast Shows v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

3 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