Ligonier Tavern, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
The issue before us in this workers’ compensation case is whether the Commonwealth Court erred in determining that Section 320 of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1 (Act) is constitutionally sound. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
Julie Walker (Claimant) began working for Appellant, Ligonier Tavern, Inc., as a dishwasher on December 23, 1991. Her average weekly wage was $95.72. At the time she began working for Appellant, Claimant was seventeen years and almost four months old, her date of birth being August 29, 1974. On April 24,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Rudy v. McCloskey CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AlbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Kramer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Lyons v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.