Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Westinghouse Electric Corp./CBS v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Muse v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Joyce Western Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Sears v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.