Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kiebler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 17, 1999Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I believe that to imply unjust enrichment against a claimant is against the legislative scheme embodied in the Workers’ Compensation Act. In any event, even if equitable principles were implied, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied, not unjust enrichment.

After Eric Kiebler (Claimant) suffered a work-related injury, Specialty Tire of America (Employer) issued a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) providing a weekly benefit rate of $451.85 for total disability based upon an average weekly wage of $677.77. Because it had allocated Claimant’s 1994…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fahringer, McCarty & Grey, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Sharon Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Edgewater Steel Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Walker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API