Legal Opinion

McGraw-Edison v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 1988No. Appeal 381 Misc. Docket 4PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Before us is the interlocutory appeal by permission of McGraw-Edison (Petitioner) from an order of the Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Board) directing Petitioner to reinstate partial disability benefits to several of its injured employees pursuant to Section 306(b) of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act (Act), 1 and remanding for computation of those benfits.

This appeal actually involves twenty-three separate modification petitions filed by Petitioner and twenty-three separate reinstatement petitions filed by the individual Claimants (Claimants). All of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meehan v. Cheltenham TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Duquesne Light Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Harper & Collins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Visintin v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Brennan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. General Dynamics, Land Systems Division v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Harper v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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