Ricketts v. Bell Telephone Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hirt, J.,
The Board, in affirming the Referee, found that claimant, a switchboard operator, had suffered a compensable injury from accident in the course of her employment with the defendant. In the appeal from the award in the lower court the question whether claimhnt, on the facts as found by the Board had sustained án accidental injury within the contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was wholly of law. Keener v. City of Uniontown, 162 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 57 A. 2d 587. From the record in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the claimant, we are convinced…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Crispin v. Leedom Worrall Co. (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Garver v. B. K. Elliott Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Shatto v. Bardinet Exports, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Owatt v. Rodman's BeverageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Patterson v. Philadelphia Dairy Products Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Nelson v. Borough of GreenvilleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Rettew v. GraybillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Kracoski v. Bernice White Ash Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Milowicki v. Post and Paddock, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1969
- Findon v. Nick ChevroletSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.