Legal Opinion

Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 2013PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice TODD.

In these consolidated appeals, we consider whether the manifestation of an occupational disease outside of the 300-week period prescribed by Section 301(c)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “WCA” or the “Act”),1 77 P.S. § 411(2), removes the claim from the purview of the Act, such that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 481, does not apply. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that claims for occupational disease which manifests outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and,…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Fonner v. Shandon, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Dechert LLP v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Commonwealth v. LongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Louise Blanyar v. Genova Products IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
  3. Estate of FullerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Hutz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. J.L. Nagle. v. TrueBlue, Inc., Labor Ready, Inc. and Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. and Rye Twp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

51 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