Legal Opinion

DeMascola v. Lancaster

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1963No. Appeals, 241, 242, and 243PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

The claimant, Albert DeMascola, in this occupational disease case, was employed by the City of Lancaster, as a full-time salaried fireman for fourteen years. During this time, as a fireman, he was exposed to heat and flame, excitement, extreme exertion, at times, weather and water, danger from collapsing buildings and other dangers concomitant to a fireman’s occupation. He was on duty as a fireman on November 20, 1960, and on that date was engaged in fighting a fire. While pulling sections of a hose off a pumper, without assistance, he suffered very severe pain and had…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Roschak Et Ux. v. Vulcan Iron WorksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Courtney v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  3. McIntyre v. E. J. Lavino & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Foster v. State College BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Jaloneck v. Jarecki Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Bambrick v. Asten Hill Mfg. Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Evon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Marcks v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Scott v. United States Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964

21 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