Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1953–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Socha v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2002Socha v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bell Atlantic PA), 725 A.2d 1276 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (Socha I), affirmed, 566 Pa. 602 , 783 A.2d 288 (2001) (Socha II). 2001See id. | 1 | 2 |
Leber v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1997In cases that do not involve an occupational disease, the 120-day statutory period under Section 311 of the Act begins to run "when the injured employee knows, or reasonably should know, of the nature of his injury and its relationship to his employment, regardless of whether the injured employee is disabled by the injury.” Leber v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 491 , 628 A.2d 481, 484 (1993) (citation omitted). 1997In cases that do not involve an occupational disease, the 120-day statutory period under Section 311 of the Act begins to run "when the injured employee knows, or reasonably should know, of the nature of his injury and its relationship to his employment, regardless of whether the injured employee is disabled by the injury.” Leber v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 491 , 628 A.2d 481, 484 (1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Split Vein Coal Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1992See Split Vein Coal Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Erdman), 124 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 642, 556 A.2d 958 (1989). 1990Claimant’s argument is based upon our holding in Split Vein Coal Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Erdman), 124 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 642, 556 A.2d 958 (1989), where we held that the 120-day notice provision of Section 311 does not begin to run in occupa *118 tional disease cases until an injured worker knows or reasonably should know that he is disabled. | 1 | 2 |
City of Erie v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2018Gribble v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cambria County Association for the Blind), 692 A.2d 1160, 1162-63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); City of Erie v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Shannon), 607 A.2d 327, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (en banc), aff’d without op., 631 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1993); Westerman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (K-Mart Corp.), (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2216 C.D. 2013, filed March 3, 2015), slip op. at 6-7, 2015 WL 5332110 at *4 (claimant’s notifications to employer that he had a hernia and stomach pain were insufficient to satisfy Section 311 notice requirement). | 1 | 1 |
Gribble v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2018Gribble v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cambria County Association for the Blind), 692 A.2d 1160, 1162-63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); City of Erie v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Shannon), 607 A.2d 327, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (en banc), aff’d without op., 631 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1993); Westerman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (K-Mart Corp.), (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2216 C.D. 2013, filed March 3, 2015), slip op. at 6-7, 2015 WL 5332110 at *4 (claimant’s notifications to employer that he had a hernia and stomach pain were insufficient to satisfy Section 311 notice requirement). | 1 | 1 |
Gentex Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2015Gentex Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morack), 611 Pa. 38 , 23 A.3d 528 (2011), is the leading, and dispositive, case. 2015Gentex Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morack), 611 Pa. 38 , 23 A.3d 528 (2011), is the leading, and dispositive, case. | 1 | 1 |
Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2004This Court granted discretionary review because the notice issue in cases of aggravation injuries is important; it is an issue of first impression for this Court; and as is evidenced by the fact that the parties have forwarded plausible arguments premised upon competing lines of Commonwealth Court authority, the Commonwealth Court decisions in this area are uneven. *215 In workers’ compensation appeals, this Court will affirm the adjudication below unless we find that an error of law was committed, that constitutional rights were violated, that a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency | 1 | 1 |
General Elec. v. WCAB (VALSAMAKI)green1 sentence2001See General Electric Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Valsamaki), 140 Pa.Cmwlth.461, 593 A.2d 921 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 529 Pa. 626 , 600 A.2d 541 (1991) (The WCJ, as the ultimate fact finder in workers’ compensation cases, has exclusive province over questions of credibility and evidentiary weight.); Hayden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 83 Pa.Cmwlth.451, 479 A.2d 631 (1984) (Determinations as to witness credibility and evidentiary weight are not subject to appellate review.). | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence1992Compare Long v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Anchor Container Corp.), 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 242, 505 A.2d 369 (1984), (claimant’s wife’s telephone call informing employer’s production manager that claimant had a heart attack and that he would no longer be back to work because of the fumes was sufficient to inform employer that claimant’s disability was work-related). . | 1 | 1 |
Rinehimer v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1989See Rinehimer, et al. v. Riverview Block Co., et al., 66 Pa.Cmwlth. 480 , 444 A.2d 1339 (1982). 1989See Rinehimer, et al. v. Riverview Block Co., et al., 66 Pa.Cmwlth. 480 , 444 A.2d 1339 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Township of Upper Darby v. Commonwealth, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1987Furthermore, unlike the reasoning underlying a statute of limitations and a statute of repose (provisions which are found in both the Act and the ODA) we have stated in Township of Upper Darby v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 438, 442 , 417 A.2d 1319, 1321 (1980), “[t]he purpose of the [21 day] notice requirement of Section 311 is to apprise the employer of the claim and to give the opportunity for a thorough investigation while the events are recent.” But see Torrey at 1061 n. 434. 1987Furthermore, unlike the reasoning underlying a statute of limitations and a statute of repose (provisions which are found in both the Act and the ODA) we have stated in Township of Upper Darby v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 438, 442 , 417 A.2d 1319, 1321 (1980), “[t]he purpose of the [21 day] notice requirement of Section 311 is to apprise the employer of the claim and to give the opportunity for a thorough investigation while the events are recent.” But see Torrey at 1061 n. 434. | 1 | 1 |
Duquesne Light Co. v. Diggsgreen2 sentences1981See Duquesne Light Co. v. Diggs, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 58 , 406 A.2d 246 (1979). 1981See Duquesne Light Co. v. Diggs, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 58 , 406 A.2d 246 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tady v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1993In Tady v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Republic Steel Corp.), 86 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 582, 485 A.2d 897 (1985), in which the claimant made a similar argument, we disagreed that an employer waived the defense of lack of notice by not specifically pleading it as an affirmative defense, stating: We disagree with Tady’s characterization of the notice requirements of Section 311 as a statute of limitations. 1988Id. at 585 , 485 A.2d at 899 . | 3 | 1985–1993 |
Duquesne Light Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences1993Duquesne Light Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 53 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 92, 416 A.2d 651 (1980). 1985Duquesne Light Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92 , 416 A.2d 651 (1980). | 2 | 1985–1993 |
Shannon v. City of Erie
neutral
1 sentence2018Gribble v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cambria County Association for the Blind), 692 A.2d 1160, 1162-63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); City of Erie v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Shannon), 607 A.2d 327, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (en banc), aff’d without op., 631 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1993); Westerman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (K-Mart Corp.), (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2216 C.D. 2013, filed March 3, 2015), slip op. at 6-7, 2015 WL 5332110 at *4 (claimant’s notifications to employer that he had a hernia and stomach pain were insufficient to satisfy Section 311 notice requirement). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Caloric Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
neutral
1 sentence2008Cf. Caloric Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoemaker), 802 A.2d 32 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (discussing rationales of this Court’s opinion in Socha I and the plurality opinion in Socha II but specifically noting that compliance with Section 311 notice requirements is a question of fact to be decided by the WCJ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Reed v. Glidden Co.
green
2 sentences2003See generally Sheetz v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.), 104 Pa.Cmwlth.411, 522 A.2d 146 (1987) (Section 311 clearly provides that no notice is necessary if the employer has actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury); Reed v. Glidden Co., 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 343 , 318 A.2d 376 (1974). 2003See generally Sheetz v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.), 104 Pa.Cmwlth.411, 522 A.2d 146 (1987) (Section 311 clearly provides that no notice is necessary if the employer has actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury); Reed v. Glidden Co., 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 343 , 318 A.2d 376 (1974). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Socha v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2002Socha v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bell Atlantic PA), 725 A.2d 1276 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (Socha I), affirmed, 566 Pa. 602 , 783 A.2d 288 (2001) (Socha II). 2002Socha v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bell Atlantic PA), 725 A.2d 1276 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (Socha I), affirmed, 566 Pa. 602 , 783 A.2d 288 (2001) (Socha II). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Travelers Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2002Travelers Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Levine), 68 Pa.Cmwlth.24, 447 A.2d 1116 (Pa.Cmwlth.1982). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hayden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2001See General Electric Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Valsamaki), 140 Pa.Cmwlth.461, 593 A.2d 921 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 529 Pa. 626 , 600 A.2d 541 (1991) (The WCJ, as the ultimate fact finder in workers’ compensation cases, has exclusive province over questions of credibility and evidentiary weight.); Hayden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 83 Pa.Cmwlth.451, 479 A.2d 631 (1984) (Determinations as to witness credibility and evidentiary weight are not subject to appellate review.). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hermanson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1993In Hermanson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kaiser Aluminum), 156 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 556, 628 A.2d 514 (1993), the claimant filed a claim petition in 1989 alleging a total loss of hearing on March 31, 1986. 1993In Hermanson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Kaiser Aluminum), 156 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 556, 628 A.2d 514 (1993), the claimant filed a claim petition in 1989 alleging a total loss of hearing on March 31, 1986. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
McDevitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
neutral
2 sentences1991In the latter case, the term “injury” has been judicially interpreted to mean “injury” and not "disability." McDevitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ron Davidson Chevrolet), 106 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 207, 525 A.2d 1252 (1987), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 518 Pa. 629 , 541 A.2d 1140 (1988), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 520 Pa. 119 , 552 A.2d 1048 (1989). 1991In the latter case, the term “injury” has been judicially interpreted to mean “injury” and not "disability." McDevitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ron Davidson Chevrolet), 106 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 207, 525 A.2d 1252 (1987), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 518 Pa. 629 , 541 A.2d 1140 (1988), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 520 Pa. 119 , 552 A.2d 1048 (1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
McDevitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1991In the latter case, the term “injury” has been judicially interpreted to mean “injury” and not "disability." McDevitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ron Davidson Chevrolet), 106 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 207, 525 A.2d 1252 (1987), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 518 Pa. 629 , 541 A.2d 1140 (1988), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 520 Pa. 119 , 552 A.2d 1048 (1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Thomas v. Commonwealth, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1990The referee further concluded that since claimant filed her claim petition on October 4, 1982, a copy of which was received by employer a few days thereafter, that she satisfied the 120-day notice requirement found in Section 311 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act. 3 Thomas v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 55 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 449, 423 A.2d 784 (1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Van Patton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1988Van Patton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Scott Paper Company), 86 Pa. Common wealth Ct. 538, 485 A.2d 541 (1984). 1988Van Patton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Scott Paper Company), 86 Pa. Commonwealth *167 Ct. 538, 485 A.2d 541 (1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lambert v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1987Based on our recent decision in Lambert v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reitz Coal Co. and Old Republic Cos.), 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 565 , 526 A.2d 1263 (1987), we are constrained to reverse the Board. 1987Based on our recent decision in Lambert v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reitz Coal Co. and Old Republic Cos.), 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 565 , 526 A.2d 1263 (1987), we are constrained to reverse the Board. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1987This interpretation would also be in harmony with Section 406.1 of the Act, 3 77 P.S. §717.1 which states that, “[t]he first installment of compensation shall be paid not later than the twenty-first day after the employer has notice or knowledge of the employes disability.” The Claimant argues to us Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Feiertag), 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 567 , 496 A.2d 412 (1985), as authority for the principle that when notice is given within 21 days of a claimants knowledge, benefits are granted beginning with the date of disability. 1987This interpretation would also be in harmony with Section 406.1 of the Act, 3 77 P.S. §717.1 which states that, “[t]he first installment of compensation shall be paid not later than the twenty-first day after the employer has notice or knowledge of the employes disability.” The Claimant argues to us Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Feiertag), 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 567 , 496 A.2d 412 (1985), as authority for the principle that when notice is given within 21 days of a claimants knowledge, benefits are granted beginning with the date of disability. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Czepurnyj
green
2 sentences1986Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) v. Czepurnyj, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 305 , 340 A.2d 915 (1975). 1986Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) v. Czepurnyj, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 305 , 340 A.2d 915 (1975). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Duquesne Light Co. v. GURICK.
green
2 sentences1981We decided the question of whether Section 311 notice requirements are controlling in death claims in Duquesne Light Comapny v. Gurick, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 150 , 405 A.2d 1358 (1979), a case which also involved a death resulting from occupational disease. 1981We decided the question of whether Section 311 notice requirements are controlling in death claims in Duquesne Light Comapny v. Gurick, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 150 , 405 A.2d 1358 (1979), a case which also involved a death resulting from occupational disease. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Katz v. Evening Bulletin
green
2 sentences1980Katz v. The Evening Bulletin, 485 Pa. 536 , 403 A.2d 518 (1979). 1980Katz v. The Evening Bulletin, 485 Pa. 536 , 403 A.2d 518 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Zacek v. Republic Steel Corp. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Evening Bulletin green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Republic Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Republic Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Toffalori v. Donatelli Granite Co. green | 1 | 1953–1953 |