Legal Opinion

Samuel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 26, 2002PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge SMITH-RIBNER.

Larry Pitt & Associates (Pitt), attorneys for Christophine Samuel, petition for review of the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ approved a compromise and release agreement but concluded that Pitt failed to establish that an attorney’s fee in excess of 20 percent was warranted. Pitt questions whether a WCJ has the power to limit the attorney’s fee as set forth in a compromise and release agreement in light of Section 449 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, (Act), Act of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Commonwealth v. KohlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Bar Ass'n v. ThornburghCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Commonwealth v. SternSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Weidner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Seitzinger v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Lawson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Commonwealth v. NoelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Commonwealth v. NoelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. I. Henry-Aiken v. WCAB (Vanguard Group, Inc.) Petition of: L. Pitt, Esq.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

1 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