Legal Opinion
Universal AM-CAN, Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 16, 2005PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Judge McGINLEY.
Universal AM-CAN, LTD. (AM-CAN) and AIG Claim Services, Inc. (Insurer) (collectively, Petitioners) seek review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) denial of Petitioners’ request for reimbursement of litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and interest.
On March 26, 2001, Petitioners filed an application for supersedeas fund reimbursement and alleged:
Insurer’s request for supersedeas was denied on 12/27/1995 ... as a result of which insurer continued payment from 04/16/1993 until…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LittleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Vinglinsky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Pennhurst Medical Group, P.C. v. Commonwealth, Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Martin Trucking Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Barrett v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- In Re Appeal of NevlingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Universal Am-Can v. WCAB (MINTEER)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.