Legal Opinion

Volterano v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1994No. 21 E.D. Appeal Docket 1993PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur in the case sub judice to address two issues. The first issue is whether the Commonwealth Court erred in failing to address Lash v. WCAB (General Battery Corp.), 491 Pa. 294, 420 A.2d 1325 (1980), and instead treated this claim as one relying on a theory of mental disability. We also sought to address, as a matter of first impression, the standard of proof to be applied in cases where a psychological/mental disability arises within the context of a physical/mental association. Because the referee’s finding of physical injury is not supported by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Andracki v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Simmons v. Pacor, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Sell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Ryan v. Workman's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

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

Powered by the Exa API