Legal Opinion

Shemanski v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 8, 1981No. Appeal, No. 1313 C.D. 1980PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The petitioner, Henry Shemanski, seeks review of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal *528Board (Board) denying the petitioner’s el aim for benefits under Section 108(1) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, added by Act of October 17, 1972, P.L. 930, as amended, 77 P.S. §27.1 (l).1

The petitioner filed a claim petition alleging that he was totally disabled due to asbestosis which he allegedly contracted in the course of his employment with Kaiser Mirawal (employer). He testified that his job required the cutting of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fruehauf Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Billet v. Keystone Roofing Manufacturing Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. McHale v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Moyer v. Brockway Clay Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Witco-Kendall Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Petillo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Harold Jamison Trucking v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Mikolay v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Sulyma v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API