Legal Opinion
Berwick Industries v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 24, 1994No. 62 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1992PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY, Justice.
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the three-year statute of repose at Section 315 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 602, may operate to bar a claim for medical expenses. We hold that such a claim may indeed be barred by Section 315 and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court.
The parties agree on the relevant facts. On November 6, 1987, Claimant Coralee A. Spaid filed a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act1 seeking compensation for a foot injury allegedly sustained during her employment as a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Oregon Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Schmucker v. NaugleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Consulting Engineers Council v. State Architects Licensure BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Paolis v. Tower Hill Connellsville Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Housing Authority of Chester v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Schreffler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.