Legal Opinion · Dissent

Latta v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 4, 1992No. 1890 C.D. 1991Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I believe the majority erred in holding that a claimant whose benefits are suspended is obligated to produce medical evidence as to his already established partial disability.

On March 24, 1977, John Latta (Claimant) suffered a work-related injury to his right arm while employed by Latrobe Die Casting Company (Employer). He received workmen’s compensation benefits until they were suspended because of his return to a “light duty” position. On October 20, 1979, Claimant and his fellow employees went on strike. After the strike ended, employees were called back to work in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Dancison v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Latta v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Goodyear v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

1 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