Legal Opinion · Dissent

Acme Markets, Inc. v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANNETTE PILVALIS)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 16, 1991No. 1803 C.D. 1990Published

1DissentBarry, Senior Judge

I must respectfully disagree with the majority opinion’s analysis of the referee’s actions in this case. The referee did no more than decide as a question of fact that the *410claimant was not capable of performing the jobs to which she was referred by the employer. Such a credibility determination is clearly within the province of the referee and beyond our review. I would affirm the order of the Board and thus must dissent.

As I believe the referee’s determinations concerning credibility are crucial to the outcome of this case, I find it necessary to quote the entire decision of the referee.

FINDI…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Kirkwood v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Arena v. Packaging Systems Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

2 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