Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 2005Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Justice NEWMAN.

The Majority concludes that Exel Logistics (Employer) is not entitled to Superse-deas Fund reimbursement in the instant matter because a petition seeking a forfeiture of benefits is not the functional equivalent of a suspension petition. I disagree with- this characterization and conclude that this result is clearly erroneous. Therefore, I must dissent.

On June 7, 1993, Employer issued a Notice of Compensation Payable to Donald Buehler (Claimant) for a May 19, 1993 work-related injury to his right shoulder. On August 11, 1997, pursuant to Section 306(f.l)(8),…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric Corp./CBS v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Muse v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Joyce Western Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Sears v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

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