Legal Opinion

County of Allegheny v. Gallo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 29, 1980No. Appeal, 1157 C.D. 1979PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

The narrow issue presented by this workmen’s compensation appeal is whether a doctor’s testimony that the incidence of chronic obstructive lung disease and interstitial fibrosis is greater in the automotive body repair industry than in the general population satisfies the third requirement of Section 108(n) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 1 of the Act of October 17, 1972, P.L. 930, 77 P.S. §27.1 (n). We hold that it does not and therefore reverse the order of the Workmen’s Compensation…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fruehauf Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Millcraft Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Colt Industries v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Landis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Berry v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Landis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API