Legal Opinion · Concurrence

USAir, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 1993No. 2084 C.D. 1992Published

1ConcurrenceMcGINLEY, Judge

I agree with the perceptive conclusion that this record presents only unrebutted, facially trustworthy evidence of daily aggravation of a foot problem which may not be rejected by the referee without an adequate statement of the basis for that rejection, and I join therein. I write separately to point out that our cases which address the triggering of the statute of limitations (Section 315 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 602) and the 120-day period for providing notice to the employer of an injury (Section 311 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 631) are not consistent when the injury involved results from the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. HartliebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Hinkle v. HJ Heinz CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Ciabattoni v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

24 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