Legal Opinion · Dissent

McGaffin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 19, 2006Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge SMITH-RIBNER.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s ruling that the significant first-impression issue presented in this case may not be addressed because the issue was waived. The issue concerns whether a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) may entertain and grant a termination petition when an unappealed permanent impairment rating is in place pursuant to Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 511.2. Laurence A. McGaffm (Claimant) suffered injury in a fall on February 8, 1999. He had back *103surg…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gardner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Riedel v. HUMAN REL. COM'N OF READINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Sheridan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Anzon, Inc.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Heath v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Heath v. WCAB (BD. OF PROB. AND PAR.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

6 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