Legal Opinion

United Cerebral Palsy v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 1996No. 9 W.D. Appeal Docket 1995PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CASTILLE, Justice.

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (“Act”) 1 permits a referee first to modify a claimant’s workmen’s compensation benefits based on the wage rate of the first available job referred to the claimant within his or her physical limitations which was not pursued in good faith, and then to entirely suspend the claimant’s workmen’s compensation benefits at a later date based upon the wage rate of a subsequently referred job which was also not pursued in good faith. 2 For the reasons set forth below, we find that the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Dillon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Frontini v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Benner v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Panea v. IsdanerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Mitchell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Trimmer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. In re the Estate of McCutcheonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

8 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