Strunack v. Ecker
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentSpaeth, Judge
In deciding that the expense of chiropractic services may not be counted toward the $750 threshold provided in the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Act, 40 P.S. § 1009.301(a)(5)(B), the majority cites the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The maxim is beside the point. The issue in this case is not whether we should add the word “chiropractic” to the words “medical and dental;” it is rather whether the term “medical services” should be construed to include chiropractic services.
I am persuaded that the term “medical services” as used in section 301(a)(5)(B) should be construed to include…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RigginsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- State v. MellenbergerOregon Supreme Court · 1939
- Long v. Metzger, S. B. M. E., Etc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. SeibertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.