Legal Opinion

McElheney v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 19, 2008No. 15 EAP 2007PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Chief Justice CASTILLE.

The single issue before the Court is: when is an injured worker entitled to concurrent compensation under both the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (“PWCA”), 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Resolution of this issue turns on the construction of terms in the LHWCA, specifically, whether the worker was injured while performing a “traditional maritime function” and whether the situs of the injury was “upon the navigable waters of the United States.” See Wellsville Terminals…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Western Fuel Co. v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Sun Ship, Inc. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Vasquez Ex Rel. Bautista v. GMD Shipyard Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
  2. Uphold v. Illinois Workers' Compensation CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  3. St. Mary's Regional Medical Center v. Bath Iron WorksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009
  4. Com. v. D'Agostino, W.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Vasquez v. FCE Industries, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API