Legal Opinion

St. Joe Container Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 1, 1993No. 116 W.D. Appeal Docket 1991PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*349 OPINION OF THE COURT

CAPPY1, Justice.

In this appeal we must determine whether alternative nonunion employment offered by Employer, and capable of being performed by Claimant, was nevertheless “unavailable” because it required a forfeiture of seniority, security and associated benefits achieved through 36 years of prior unionized service with Employer, thus rendering Claimant’s refusal of such employment reasonable and insufficient to support modification of compensation to reflect partial disability.2 For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court, affirming…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments DivisionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. St. Joe Container Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Fledderman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Lehigh County Vo-Tech School v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Costello)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Markle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Dilkus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. General Electric Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

28 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