Panyko v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.