Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Williams v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 28, 1994No. 38 C.D. 1993Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFriedman, Judge

I concur with the majority in its determination that Daniel Williams (Claimant) failed to preserve for our review whether Realty Service Company (Employer) filed a timely Answer to the Claim Petition. With regard to the other issues properly before this Court, I respectfully dissent.

First, the majority has decided that Employer is not estopped from denying liability after commencing payment of . compensation to Claimant following a timely Notice of Compensation Denial. In order to reach this conclusion, the majority determined that Mosgo v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Tri-area…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Investors Diversified Services & Travelers Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Howar) (Hoar)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Mosgo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Boeing Vertol Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Moody v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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