Davis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentNigro, Justice
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion to the extent it requires proof of abnormal working conditions when a claimant sustains physical injuries from a psychological stimulus.
First, I find that the majority, in weaving its way to its conclusion, makes ambiguous use of the term “injury.” In workers’ compensation claims, there are three cause and effect paradigms in which a psychological or “mental” component plays a role. The workers’ compensation shorthand for these are known as 1) physical/mental (where a physical stimulus causes a psychic injury) 2) mental/mental (where a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Ryan v. Workman's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Volterano v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Whiteside v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Steinle v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.