Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJustice McCAFFERY
Because I read Section 443(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”)1 somewhat differently than does the majority, and have a different view than that of the majority regarding the nature of su-persedeas under the Act, I must respectfully dissent. My views are more closely in accord with that of the Commonwealth Court dissenting opinion and the general argument of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“Bureau”) in this case.
As the majority points out, the contentious issue here is what Section 443(a) means when it provides that “payments of compensation are made as a result” of a denial of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Loose v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- McLaughlin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Crucible, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Vinovich)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Kuemmerle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.