Legal Opinion · Dissent

Olszewski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 31, 1988No. Appeal No. 3575 C.D. 1986Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Senior Judge Barbieri:

Most respectfully, I must record my dissent and disagreement with the view of the majority that the permanent loss of use of one-half of the Claimants fourth or little finger for all practical intents and purposes, as found by the referee, was properly reversed by the Board in this case.

While it is true that Section 513 of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. §513, providing for specific losses of body members, contains no statutory authorization for less than the complete loss of use of a member, nevertheless, by case law loss…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. HartliebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Curran v. Walter E. Knipe & Sons, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Commonwealth v. BristowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Gindy Manufacturing Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Yaklich v. Union Collieries Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

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