Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lisanti Painting Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 5, 2009No. 152 C.D. 2008, 344 C.D. 2008Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

Section 306(f.1)(8) of the Workers’ Compensation Act,1 provides (with emphasis added):

*473Accordingly, a claimant who refuses reasonable medical or surgical procedures that would improve his condition and lessen his disability should not be permitted to continue to collect benefits for a permanent loss. Alltel, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Baum), 829 A.2d 739 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); Litak v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Comcast Cablevision), 155 Pa. Cmwlth. 147, 624 A.2d 773 (1993). The Act does not permit employees to choose between compensation and cure.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Muse v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Litak v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Alltel, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API