Legal Opinion

Allen v. Bill's Tire Shop, Maryland Casualty Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1928No. Appeal 41PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

After a Workmen’s Compensation agreement had been satisfied by a final receipt, claimant’s petition to re-open the case was granted on the ground that he had erroneously failed to include an item of $100 for medical expenses. The referee and the board allowed $33; the court disregarded their findings of fact, made its own, and awarded $100. The insurance carrier appeals.

In Vorbnoff v. Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199, at 205 it is said: “Section 427 of the Act of 1919 [P. L. 665] which takes the place of section 425 in the original statute [1915 P. L. 754] States that ‘Any party…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Denne v. Plymouth Coal Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Luckenbill v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Icenhour v. Freedom Oil Wks. Co. (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Garrahan v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Todd v. State Workmen's Insurance FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API