Legal Opinion

Dilkus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 1, 1996No. 0059 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1995PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur to address the question of whether, and to what extent, an employer must consider factors other than medical restrictions in offering replacement work. We find that Appellee, John F. Martin & Sons, met its burden of proof as to job availability and therefore affirm.

On December 2, 1987, Appellant, Peter J. Dilkus, suffered a work-related lower back injury while employed as an outside salesman for Appellee, John F. Martin & Sons (hereinafter Employer). As an outside salesman, Appellant would take orders from restaurants and stores and call the orders…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. St. Joe Container Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Markle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Titusville Hospital v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Tim Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2012
  2. United Cerebral Palsy v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Litzinger v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Karpulk v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Worth & Co.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Kelly Services v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005

12 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