Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJustice Newman
The Majority concludes that neither Barbara Gardner (Gardner) nor Leroy Rider (Rider) must submit themselves for an impairment rating evaluation (IRE) based on an interpretation of Section 306(a.2)(l) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 77 P.S. § 511.2(1), although the Majority would find *384that Gardner and Rider could be required to submit to an IRE pursuant to Section 306(a.2)(6). Because I believe that the Majority has reached an erroneous result in both matters before us, I must respectfully dissent.
The Act recognizes that the disability of an employee may change over time and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Caso v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003