Legal Opinion
Topps Chewing Gum v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 23, 1998PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Judge.
The issue we are asked to decide pertains to the 1993 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) 1 which are commonly known as Act 44. Specifically, in this case, we consider who bears the burden of proof under the Act 44 amendments to the Act in a Petition for Review of Utilization Review (UR) Determination filed pursuant to section 306(f.l)(6) of the Act. 77 P.S. § 531(6) (amended 1996).
Prior to the Act 44 amendments, section 306(f) of the pre-amended Act provided that an employer could challenge the reasonableness or necessity of an employee’s work-related medical…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. KrawczynskiCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Greenwich Collieries v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. Sitkin's Junk Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Insurance CommissionerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Sullivan v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- CVA, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Womack v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Cruz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Department of Public Welfare/Polk Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Martin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.