Legal Opinion

Schneider, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Bey)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 28, 2000No. 0002 WD Appeal Docket 1999PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION 1

NEWMAN, Justice.

The issue on appeal is whether an employer seeking a suspension of workers’ compensation benefits must demonstrate job availability under the distinct factual circumstances of this case.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Omar Bey (Bey) sustained a work-related injury to his head and neck while working as a boilermaker for Schneider, Inc. (Schneider) on May 19, 1987. Pursuant to a Notice of Compensation Payable, Schneider began paying Bey total disability benefits. By supplemental agreements, the parties agreed that Bey would return to work on November 11, 1987, and that his…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Dillon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Harle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Costello)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Banic v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Costello)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Martin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Mitchell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

7 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