Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dunn v. United Insurance Co. of America

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1984No. 2362Published

1Dissent

SPAETH, President Judge,

dissenting:

I am unable to agree with the majority that summary judgment was proper in this case.1 While appellant’s complaint is inartfully pleaded, the cause of action she intended to plead sufficiently appears. Since, contrary to the majority, this cause of action is not barred, we should reverse and remand with leave to appellant to amend her complaint.

1

The purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq., is to compensate employees for on-the-job injuries. As the Supreme Court has said:

By virtue of the ...…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Saracina v. CotoiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Socha v. MetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Mike v. Borough of AliquippaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Readinger v. GottschallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

13 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