Acme Markets, Inc. v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANNETTE PILVALIS)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Kirkwood v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Arena v. Packaging Systems Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.