USAir, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. HartliebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Hinkle v. HJ Heinz CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Ciabattoni v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.