Legal Opinion · Dissent

Panyko v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2005No. 37 WAP 2004Published

1DissentJustice Newman

The Majority concludes that Russell Panyko (Claimant) satisfied the burden necessary to achieve entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits for a heart attack that he experienced on February 5, 1997, after a single routine, nondisciplinary meeting with the company attendance manager. Because I believe that the Majority has expanded the meaning of “work-related injury” to the point that it has, as a judicial body, converted workers’ compensation coverage into general group life and health insurance in contravention of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 I must respectfully dissent.

Claimant…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918

20 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