Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2005No. 14 EAP 2004 and 103 MAP 2004Published

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

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Caso v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API