Legal Opinion · Dissent

D'Errico v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 26, 1999Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I would conclude from the findings of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) that Molly D’Errico’s (Claimant) psychiatric injury is the result of abnormal working conditions. Thus, I would reverse the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) and would award Claimant benefits.

Claimant worked as a personal aide to Judge Lillian Podgorski of the Philadelphia Traffic Court. The majority holds that the psychiatric injury suffered by Claimant while working in that position is the result of Claimant’s subjective reaction to normal working…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Antus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Antus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Ball Incon Glass Packaging v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API