Legal Opinion

Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 11, 1977No. Appeals, Nos. 1366 and 1368 C.D. 1976PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Mencee,

Walter Lash and Richard Jablonski (claimants) are seeking benefits under Section 108(a) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act1 (Act). Each contends that as a result of his employment with General Battery Corporation (General Battery) , he has become partially disabled by the occupational disease of lead poisoning. Neither the referee who held hearings on their claim petitions nor the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) accepted claimants’ contentions, and both denied benefits. Claimants then appealed to this Court.

In cases such as these, where the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Modern Cooler Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. MortonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Steinle v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Gallo v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Nardone v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Brendley v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & IndustryCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

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