Legal Opinion

Kan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 2004PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

Tong Kan (Claimant) appeals an order of the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board denied the Budd Company’s (Employer) petition to terminate benefits. The sole issue is whether Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $452.50, representing the cost for Claimant’s chosen nurse to accompany him at two independent medical examinations (IME) performed by Employer’s doctors. Agreeing Claimant is not entitled to this cost, we affirm.

In March 2001, Employer filed a termination petition alleging Claimant fully recovered from a work-related low back injury.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KelleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Caso v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Young v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Republic Steel Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Budd Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Fitchett v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  3. Pennsylvania Industries for the Blind & Handicapped v. Department of General ServicesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API