green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Butta v. Geico Cas. Co.
Ayers , 18 A.3d at 1094 (Saylor, J., concurring). 484 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallagher, B., Aplt. v. Geico Indemnity
Co., 884 A.2d 288, 290 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that a household vehicle exclusion prevented claimant from recovering additional UIM benefits under a separate motorcycle policy); Ayers, 955 A.2d at 1029 (holding that a household vehicle exclusion precluded claimant from stacking UIM coverage across multiple policies), aff’d by an equally divided court, Ayers, 18 A.3d at 1093. [J-18-2018] [MO: Baer, J.] - 6 reasonable to treat these exclusions as going to the scope of the UM/UIM coverage in the first instance, before stacking questions are reached, rather than as an aggregation question ari…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PHOENIXVILLE HOSPITAL
v.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (SHOAP) Petition of Annette Shoap
v.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (SHOAP) Petition of Annette Shoap
517 EAL 2010.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 27, 2011.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 27th day of April 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
a. Did the Commonwealth Court err and misinterpret the meaning of § 306(b)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 512(2)[,] in determining that a job is available to a claimant for purposes of said Act even when a claimant applies to each individual job contained[*204] in a labor market survey and does not receive an offer of employment?
b. Did the Commonwealth Court err in failing to remand the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Judge for a determination of whether or not the jobs identified by the employer’s vocational expert were open and available in light of the fact that the holding of the Commonwealth Court in the within matter altered the status of the law at the time of the decision rendered by the Workers’ Compensation Judge?