Legal Opinion

Kinloch v. Tonsey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 1984No. 2717PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McEWEN, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment 1 in favor of appellee, Habib Tonsey, M.D., on the grounds that Dr. Tonsey was immune from suit under the provisions of Section 205 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 72. 2 We affirm.

Appellant, George Kinloch, sustained an injury to his right leg while engaged in duties within the course and scope of his employment as a rigger for the Budd Company at the company plant located at 2450 West Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia. 3 Appellant proceeded to the Budd…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Green v. Independent Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Budzichowski v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. APPLE v. ReichertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Babich v. PavichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Proctor v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Darensburg v. Tobey, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1994
  2. Zimmerman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Kerr v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1990

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API