Plouse v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Blatt,
The Appellant, Wencil Plouse, appeals here from a dismissal of his petition for additional medical services and of his petitions for reinstatement which sought compensation for the treatment of a back problem. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirmed a referee’s dismissal of all petitions on the basis that the Appellant’s back problem was unrelated to and not the result of a prior work-related accident in which he suffered a leg injury and was therefore uncompensable under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act1 (Act).
The facts indicate that in June…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chabotar v. S. Klein Department StoreCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Thatch v. SUPERIOR ZINC COMPANYCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Hoffman v. PierceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
3Cited by1 opinion
- Glabern Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984