Legal Opinion · Dissent

Agnello v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 14, 2006Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.

I respectfully dissent with the majority, although my compassion and sympathy lies with Phyllis Agnello (Claimant). The majority in this case has taken a disfigurement claim under Section 306(c)(22) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 513(22), and converted it into an entirely new category of specific loss under this same Section.

With the enactment of Section 306(c), our General Assembly crafted and defino'J at least twenty separate categories of specific loss benefits. These…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. School District v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API