Hammerstein v. Lindsay
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWieand, Judge
I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant-hospital on the cause of action stated by the plaintiff for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am unable to agree, however, and therefore dissent from the majority’s holding that plaintiff is barred by the exclusivity clause of the Worker’s Compensation Act from asserting a cause of action for defamation.
This holding by the majority, which in my best judgment is erroneous, appears to have been caused by the majority’s failure to distinguish between the “issue”…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Dolan v. Linton's LunchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Wagner v. National Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.