Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rossa v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 2003No. 30 EAP 2002Published

1DissentJustice Nigro

As I disagree with the majority’s holding that a workers’ compensation judge has the authority to determine the paternity of a child in the context of workers’ compensation proceeding, I must respectfully dissent.

In my view, paternity must always be decided by the courts of common pleas. Indeed, I believe that the General Assembly has indicated its intent that paternity decisions be made by the trial courts through its enactment of several statutes that specifically refer to the trial courts’ authority to decide paternity and establish the procedures to be used by the trial courts in making…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cairgle v. AMERICAN R. AND SS CORP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Cairgle v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Corra v. CollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Anzaldo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Frey v. National Bond Insulators, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API