Legal Opinion

Linton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 2010No. 104 C.D. 2009PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Paul Linton (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that denied his request for attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the modification petition filed by his employer, Amcast Industrial Corporation (Employer). Claimant asserts that Employer’s modification petition, which was its second, was barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel and, as such, unreasonable as a matter of law. Discerning no merit to this contention, we affirm the Board.

This case began when Claimant tripped and fell to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Tri-Union Express v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. PMA Insurance Group v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Fiore v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental ResourcesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rogele, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. J. Carnevale v. Commonwealth of PA (WCAB)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
  3. J. May v. Dana Corporation (WCAB)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API