green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
28.6 score
“reliance on is problematic, as it was a plurality decision and is not binding precedent.”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gallagher, B., Aplt. v. Geico Indemnity
reliance on is problematic, as it was a plurality decision and is not binding precedent.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
E. Kittles v. City of Philadelphia (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 3 II.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Hutchinson v. Annville Twp. (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
M. Burkett v. Jimi Enterprises, Inc. (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Wilkes-Barre v. T. Snyder (WCAB)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 8 in reinstating Claimant’s benefits when Claimant failed to present medical evidence that Claimant was forced to retire from the entire labor market.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Overbrook Golf Club v. M. Scott (WCAB)
The employer is not required to demonstrate job availability where the employee originally refused the job offer in bad faith, Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 208 (Pa. 2006), or to keep “a job open indefinitely, waiting for the claimant to decide when he wants to work,” Spinabelli v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Massey Buick, Inc.), 614 A.2d 779, 780 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Lynch v. Com. of PA (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 6 exclusively relates to workers’ compensation benefits, not Act 534 benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.C. Hazzouri v. PA Turnpike Commission (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 5 Added by the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, formerly 77 P.S. §511.2, repealed by Act 111. 4 effective date.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luzerne County v. D. Allford (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 9 WCJ erred by admitting the Kronos Time Card, the Board erred by failing to rule that Claimant’s testimony regarding the Kronos Time Card was likewise inadmissible.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Essix Holdings, LLC v. M. Dengel (WCAB)
Appeal Bd. (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
K. Hender-Moody v. American Heritage Federal Credit Union (WCAB)
Pitt-Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 4 The Pennsylvania Association for Justice, a nonprofit organization that promotes the rights of individual citizens, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Claimant’s position. 3 77 P.S. §511.2, and added Section 306(a.3) of the Act, 77 P.S. §511.3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R. Bernauer, Sr. v. Tinicum Twp. (WCAB)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 8 judicata and collateral estoppel, it erred by affirming the denial on other grounds.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.M. Kush v. WCAB (Power Contracting Company)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 4 employment and that his employment agreement with Employer included the time spent for transportation to and/or from work.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
W.W. Watkins v. WCAB (Caretti, Inc.)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 3 Claimant began treating with Dr. Mauthe in July 2014.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J. McNeil v. WCAB (DOC, SCI-Graterford)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 207 (Pa. 2006). 7 the nature of Claimant’s work-related injury and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to prevent the Claimant from re-litigating that issue at this time.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McNeil v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Corrections, SCI-Graterford)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 590 Pa. 99 , 912 A.2d 206, 207 (2006). 5 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilgro Services, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mentusky)
Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 590 Pa. 99 , 912 A.2d 206, 207 (2006). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Twp. of New Sewickley and Board of Supervisors of New Sewickley Twp. v. Cardinal PA Midstream, LLC and PennEnergy Resources, LLC
Leaving aside the question of the significance of a plurality opinion,20 Robinson Township did not reach, or 20 A plurality opinion “is binding on the parties in that particular case,” but it “is not binding precedent.” Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 912 A.2d 206, 208 (Pa. 2006). 24 indeed even discuss, whether a municipality could choose to adopt a 750-foot setback, as the Township did here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Township of New Sewickley
A plurality opinion "is binding on the parties in that particular case,’’ .but it "is not binding precedent.’’ Pitt Ohio Express v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Wolff), 590 Pa. 99 , 912 A.2d 206, 208 (2006). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Napierski v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
If we allowed a claimant to reject a job in bad faith and then place a burden on the employer to provide the claimant another job whenever he chooses, we would reward bad faith conduct and circumvent the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act.[ 5 ] Id. at 104 , 912 A.2d at 209 (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OLD FORGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Lawrence S. Herman, D.C., Nachas, Inc., Jason H. Herman, Robert Petty, R.G. Petty Masonry, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated
v.
HIGHMARK INC., d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield and Pennsylvania Blue Shield, a Non-Profit Pennsylvania Corporation, Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania, d/b/a Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department and Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appeal of Lawrence S. Herman, D.C., Nachas, Inc., and Jason H. Herman, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated.
v.
HIGHMARK INC., d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield and Pennsylvania Blue Shield, a Non-Profit Pennsylvania Corporation, Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania, d/b/a Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department and Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appeal of Lawrence S. Herman, D.C., Nachas, Inc., and Jason H. Herman, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.