Legal Opinion · Dissent

Davis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 18, 2000No. Supreme Court, 118 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997Published

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

  1. Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Ryan v. Workman's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Volterano v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Whiteside v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Steinle v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

4 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