Legal Opinion
Hastings Industries v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 17, 1992No. 90 W.D. Appeal Docket 1990PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Justice.
At issue is the scope of review by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) in a facial disfigurement case under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act.1 We must decide whether WCAB may modify the amount of a referee’s award, based on the board’s view of the facial disfigurement, when it determines that the referee capriciously disregarded evidence of the severity and unsightliness of the disfigurement.
Appellant, Melvin Hyatt, was injured at work in a natural gas explosion on May 3,1985. In addition to other injuries, he suffered facial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McGartland v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- United States Steel Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- American Chain & Cable Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Purex Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- School District v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Bowling v. Office of Open RecordsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- City of Philadelphia v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.