Legal Opinion · Dissent

Krawchuk v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 1979No. Appeal, No. 1583 C.D. 1977Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Blatt :

The principal and determinative issue in this case is whether or not the decedent suffered an injury “arising in the course of his employment.” I am convinced that he did and must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

In construing the meaning of the words " arising in the course of his employment,” I would follow the approach of Professor Larson, an eminent authority in *607the field of workmen’s compensation law, who suggests

a careful reading of the exact phrasing of the present coverage formula. It does not say that the injury must ‘occur’ or ‘be manifested’ or ‘be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Plasteel Products Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Borough of Throop v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API