Legal Opinion
City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 21, 2004No. 36 EAP 2003PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice CASTILLE.
The issue before this Court is whether claimant/appellee Nadine Williams complied with the 120-day notice requirement of Section 311 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), 1 77 P.S. § 631, when she notified her employer that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome condition was work-related only after the condition became disabling on her last day of work in March 1997, even though it was first diagnosed in January 1996. 2 A Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded benefits and both the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (the Board) and the Commonwealth Court…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Sell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Bowser v. BlomSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Combine v. WCAB (National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Bass v. IsochemCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- Commonwealth v. DellisantiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Gallie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.