Joyce v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCastille, Justice
The majority holds that appellant’s workmen’s compensation benefits should not have been modified because the modification was based upon improper hearsay testimony of the employer’s job placement specialist. I concur with the majority’s conclusion that hearsay testimony concerning job availability cannot normally be a basis to modify benefits if properly objected to. I nevertheless dissent here because the employer’s job placement specialist’s testimony does not pertain to the issue of job availability but rather pertains to appellant’s good faith in pursuing a position, which he himself…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Acme Markets, Inc. v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANNETTE PILVALIS)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Republic Seafood, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993