Legal Opinion · Dissent

Moltz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 12, 1988No. Appeal No. 1780 C.D. 1987Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I dissent. The referee in this case did three things. First, he found that Claimant continued to be disabled *359at the time she signed the final receipt. .Therefore, he set it aside effective June 1, 1981. Second, he suspended payments beginning on that same date. He did so because, although Claimant continued to be medically disabled, that disability had not manifested itself in a loss of earning power and, hence, Claimant was not legally disabled. See Luciani v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Brockway Glass Co.), 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 623, 520 A.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Busche v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Venanzio v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. H. B. Sproul Construction Co. v. Commonwealth, Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Latta v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Luciani v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Brockway Glass Co., Corning Glass Co., Furnco Construction Co.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API