Legal Opinion · Dissent

Yeager v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 20, 1995No. 2629 C.D. 1993Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

On appeal to this court, Yeager maintains that because he had received a lump sum commutation as a result of his prior injury, he was not receiving concurrent compensation payments in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by law following his second work-related injury. Yeager reasons that the limitations in sections 306(a) and 306(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. §§ 511 and 512, are upon the receipt of more than the maximum allowable compensation at any one time. Thus, Yeager argues that the referee and Board erred by basing their determinations on the fact that following his second injury, Yeager…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fahringer, McCarty & Grey, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Hartner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Acme Markets, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Ingram v. W. J. Rainey, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Varghese v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

4 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