Legal Opinion

Lash v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 22, 1980No. 373PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KAUFFMAN, Justice.

Walter Lash and Richard Jablonski appeal from an order of the Commonwealth Court affirming orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board denying compensation. 1 The sole issue presented is whether employees who have been required to handle lead daily during the course of their employment are entitled to an award of compensation for partial disability when they are involuntarily transferred to lower paying lead-free jobs because, due to their lead exposure, they have become lead absorbers.

Lash and Jablonski claim benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 2…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Plasteel Products Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Associated Hosp. Serv. of Phil. v. PustilnikSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Volterano v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Markle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

28 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