Legal Opinion

Kuzniar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 1994PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEWMAN, Judge.

Theodore Kuzniar (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed a referee’s decision denying him specific loss benefits under Section 306(c)(8) of The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).1 We affirm.

Claimant worked for Sharon Steel Corporation (Employer) for over forty-two years as a crane operator and a boilermaker. _ During the course of his employment, Claimant was exposed to loud and continuous noise from various machines operating in close proximity to his work place.

On January 14, 1992, Claimant filed a claim…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. HartliebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Williams v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Boeing Helicopter Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bible v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Bible v. COM., DEPT. OF LABOR AND IND.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Aristech Chemical Corp. 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