134 Pennsylvania opinions name it 8 courts 1937–2025 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1999The Phillips opinion quoted Mehalovich, which stated that “[a]bsent a specific provision in the Act assessing costs to an employer when a claim was pursued in bad faith, ... neither the compensation authorities, nor this Court, is authorized to review compensation claims to determine if the claimant pursued the action in bad faith and, if so, to impose attorneys’ fees and costs on the claimant.” Id. at 158. 6 The important point we draw from Phillips and the Commonwealth Court cases it followed is that litigation costs and attorney fees may not be imposed absent a specific provision in the Act 1999Thus, the court concluded that, “[a]bsent a specific provision in the Act assessing costs to an employer when a claim was pursued in bad faith, ... neither the [workers’] compensation authorities, nor this Court, is authorized to review [workers’] compensation claims to determine if the claimant pursued the action in bad faith and, if so, to impose attorneys’ fees and costs on the claimant.” Id. at 158. | 3 | 3 |
Abex Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2025While a claimant’s failure to serve an employer with a claim petition may constitute an adequate excuse, see Abex Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Scears), 665 A.2d 845, 847-48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), an adequate excuse does not include factors within an employer’s control. 2022Abex Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Scears), 665 A.2d 845, 847-48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). | 2 | 2 |
Kohler v. McCrory Storesgreen2 sentences2020Kohler, 615 A.2d at 32-33 (upholding trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on a demurrer). 2020Kohler, 615 A.2d at 32-33 (upholding trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on a demurrer). | 2 | 2 |
Sauer v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.green2 sentences1991“Where the willful misconduct is based upon a violation of an employer rule or policy, the employer must establish the existence of the rule or policy and that the employee was aware of it.” Sauer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 110 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 103, 108 , 531 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1987). 1991"Where the willful misconduct is based upon a violation of an employer rule or policy, the employer must establish the existence of the rule or policy and that the employee was aware of it." Sauer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 110 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 103, 108, 531 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Uhrich v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.green2 sentences2021In the first, an employer has a claim against a claimant’s third-party recovery for indemnity benefits and medical expenses it paid “to the date of the third-party recovery . . . .” Id. (internal citations omitted). 2021Under the first scenario, the employer had a claim against the claimant’s third-party recovery for indemnity benefits and medical expenses it paid “to the date of the third-party recovery . . . .” Id. at 955 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Waldameer Park, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2018Notwithstanding, the WCJ imposed a penalty for Employer’s violation of “[S]ection Appeal Bd. (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164, 168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)]. ‘Moreover, we are to draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the evidence in support of the factfinder’s decision in favor of that prevailing party.’ Id. ‘It does not matter if there is evidence in the record supporting findings contrary to those made by the WCJ; the pertinent inquiry is whether the evidence supports the WCJ’s findings.’ Id. 3D Trucking Co., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. 2018Notwithstanding, the WCJ imposed a penalty for Employer’s violation of “[S]ection Appeal Bd. (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164, 168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)]. ‘Moreover, we are to draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the evidence in support of the factfinder’s decision in favor of that prevailing party.’ Id. ‘It does not matter if there is evidence in the record supporting findings contrary to those made by the WCJ; the pertinent inquiry is whether the evidence supports the WCJ’s findings.’ Id. 3D Trucking Co., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. | 1 | 3 |
Phillips v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1994Employer also argues the applicability of Phillips v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 519 Pa. 31 , 545 A.2d 869 (1988), where the employer was permitted to challenge the validity of its notice of compensation. 1994Employer also argues the applicability of Phillips v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 519 Pa. 31 , 545 A.2d 869 (1988), where the employer was permitted to challenge the validity of its notice of compensation. | 1 | 3 |
Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2017(Employer’s brief at 15.) The Board agreed with that argument, citing Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bullard), 790 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), to explain that the “report was not part of the record before the [WCJ] and thus, [the Board could not] consider.it.” 5 (Board op. at 4 n.l.) This Court finds that the Board did not err by declining to consider the Kuntz report because it was not part of the record. 2017(Employer’s brief at 15.) The Board agreed with that argument, citing Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bullard), 790 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), to explain that the “report was not part of the record before the [WCJ] and thus, [the Board could not] consider it.”5 (Board op. at 4 n.1.) 5 In Kimberly Clark Corp., this Court held that “items which are not part of the record may not be considered by the fact-finding tribunal, or the appellate body on review.” Kimberly Clark Corp., 790 A.2d at 1075-76 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2025Programs, Inc.), 648 A.2d 348, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (holding hearsay evidence, if properly objected to, is inadmissible even if corroborated).5 Since the WCJ improperly admitted the operative report of Dr. Bontempo over Employer’s objection, it cannot form the basis of the WCJ’s finding that the surgery Dr. Bontempo performed on Claimant was related to the work injury. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ruccigreen1 sentence2025Commonwealth v. Ricci, 670 A.2d 1129, 1141 (Pa. 1996.) Here, the WCJ found Employer violated the Act by not accepting or denying the claim in a timely manner by issuing the NCD two months after Employer admitted notice of the injury.8 Employer does not challenge that it violated the Act; 7 Section 435 was added by Section 3 of the Act of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25. 8 Section 406.1 of the Act provides, in pertinent part: (a) The employer and insurer shall promptly investigate each injury reported or known to the employer and shall proceed promptly to commence the payment of compensation due eith | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2025See Weaver, 808 A.2d at 607 (medical report not admissible under Section 422(c) where claimant’s benefits exceeded 52 weeks and employer objected to admission as hearsay).8 As Claimant did not introduce competent medical evidence, he could not 8 Claimant is correct that Employer did not object to the admission of his exhibits, insofar as it did not at one juncture. | 1 | 1 |
American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hurley)green2 sentences2024However, “[a] medical expert’s opinion is not rendered incompetent unless it is solely based on inaccurate or false information.” American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation 8 Employer’s brief does not address this issue. 18 Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (emphasis in original). “[I]t is well established that the opinion of a medical expert must be viewed as a whole, and that inaccurate information will not defeat that opinion unless it is dependent on those inaccuracies.” Id. (emphasis in original). 2024However, “[a] medical expert’s opinion is not rendered incompetent unless it is solely based on inaccurate or false information.” American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation 8 Employer’s brief does not address this issue. 18 Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (emphasis in original). “[I]t is well established that the opinion of a medical expert must be viewed as a whole, and that inaccurate information will not defeat that opinion unless it is dependent on those inaccuracies.” Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
City of Phila. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.green1 sentence2024See Sladek, 195 A.3d at 210 (“To reach the stage of the proceedings at which the employer attempts to rebut the presumption of employment-related causation, the claimant has already carried his or her Section 108(r) burden of proof that his or her cancer is of a type that may be caused by a Group 1 carcinogen.”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024Id. 10 In rejecting the Commonwealth Court’s decision in this case, the OISR first contends that “Duffey was never intended to eliminate the WCJ’s exclusive role to determine the nature and extent of a claimant’s work-related injury through her 9 See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 498 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa. 1985) (“Where there is no obvious causal connection between an injury and the alleged cause, that connection must be established by unequivocal medical testimony.”). 10However, the WCAB also agreed with the 2011 WCJ that Sicilia was not entitled to an award of penalties for Employer’s initial failure t | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2024See Lewis, 919 A.2d at 926 ; Pocono Mountain, 280 A.3d at 18. | 1 | 1 |
| Clark v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ross v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pucci v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dana Holding Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Greene v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mulholland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| 3D Trucking v. Wcab (Fine and Anthony)green | 1 | 1 |
| Pickering v. Commonwealthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Atkins v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McKay v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lombardo v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kmart v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Charles A. Ries, III v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, A/K/A Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| U.S. Airways v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sea v. Seifgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McGaffin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hefferin v. Stempkowski
green
2 sentences1978Additional defendant-employer relies upon the recent case Hefferin v. Stempkowski, 247 Pa. Superior Ct. 366 , 372 A. 2d 869 (1977), which construed the 1974 amendment to the aforesaid act as a legislative pronouncement that the act was intended to be a complete substitute for common law tort actions, so as to grant an employer immunity from suit and bar its joinder as an additional defendant in an action by an employe against a third party (here, the owner of the premises where the accident occurred). 1978Additional defendant-employer relies upon the recent case Hefferin v. Stempkowski, 247 Pa. Superior Ct. 366 , 372 A. 2d 869 (1977), which construed the 1974 amendment to the aforesaid act as a legislative pronouncement that the act was intended to be a complete substitute for common law tort actions, so as to grant an employer immunity from suit and bar its joinder as an additional defendant in an action by an employe against a third party (here, the owner of the premises where the accident occurred). | 3 | 1978–1981 |
In re Interest of M.W.
green
2 sentences2020Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (issues not included in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived); Getty v. Getty, 221 A.3d 192 , 196 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019) (same); Brown v. Halpern, 202 A.3d 687 , 709 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2019)(arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).6 In sum, the record on Employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings established that Plaintiff’s tort action against Employer is barred as a matter ____________________________________________ 5 Plaintiff’s concise statement listed as errors only the following issues, which are the same issues as she set forth 2020Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (issues not included in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived); Getty v. Getty, 221 A.3d 192 , 196 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019) (same); Brown v. Halpern, 202 A.3d 687 , 709 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2019)(arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).6 In sum, the record on Employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings established that Plaintiff’s tort action against Employer is barred as a matter ____________________________________________ 5 Plaintiff’s concise statement listed as errors only the following issues, which are the same issues as she set forth | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Getty, J. v. Getty, M.
neutral
2 sentences2020Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (issues not included in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived); Getty v. Getty, 221 A.3d 192 , 196 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019) (same); Brown v. Halpern, 202 A.3d 687 , 709 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2019)(arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).6 In sum, the record on Employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings established that Plaintiff’s tort action against Employer is barred as a matter ____________________________________________ 5 Plaintiff’s concise statement listed as errors only the following issues, which are the same issues as she set forth 2020Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (issues not included in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived); Getty v. Getty, 221 A.3d 192 , 196 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019) (same); Brown v. Halpern, 202 A.3d 687 , 709 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2019)(arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).6 In sum, the record on Employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings established that Plaintiff’s tort action against Employer is barred as a matter ____________________________________________ 5 Plaintiff’s concise statement listed as errors only the following issues, which are the same issues as she set forth | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Eldridge v. Melcher
green
2 sentences2017(Employer’s brief at 11.) In Piper Aircraft, this Court held that “an admission of. an attorney during the course of a trial [was] binding upon his client.” 485 A.2d at 908 -09 (citing Eldridge v. Melcher, 226 Pa.Super. 381 , 313 A.2d 750 (1973)). 2017(Employer’s brief at 11.) In Piper Aircraft, this Court held that “an admission of an attorney during the course of a trial [was] binding upon his client.” 485 A.2d at 908 -09 (citing Eldridge v. Melcher, 313 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 1973)). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2017(R.R. at 31-82.) Employer again references this exchange in its brief submitted to this Court, arguing that “it is eminently clear from the record that [the WCJ] based his decision on the statement made by Claimant’s counsel.” (Employer’s brief at 11-12.) Employer cites this Court’s decision in Piper Aircraft Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bibey), 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 614 , 485 A.2d 906 (1985), to argue that the statement made by Claimant’s counsel at the WCJ hearing is binding on Claimant. 2017(R.R. at 31-82.) Employer again references this exchange in its brief submitted to this Court, arguing that “it is eminently clear from the record that [the WCJ] based his decision on the statement made by Claimant’s counsel.” (Employer’s brief at 11-12.) Employer cites this Court’s decision in Piper Aircraft Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bibey), 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 614 , 485 A.2d 906 (1985), to argue that the statement made by Claimant’s counsel at the WCJ hearing is binding on Claimant. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Peak v. COM., UNEMPLOYMENT COMP. BD.
green
2 sentences2015Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985). 2 Claimant had violated Employer’s rule prohibiting violence against its employees and that Claimant was or should have been aware of this rule. 1994Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267 , 501 A.2d 1383 (1985). | 2 | 1994–2015 |
Heraeus Electro Nite Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2015Chik-Fil-A, 792 A.2d at 688-89 ; Ghee, 705 A.2d at 491-92 ; Heraeus Electro Nite Co., 697 A.2d at 608-09 . 1998Heraeus Electro Nite Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Bd. (Ulrich), 697 A.2d 603 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Yellow Freight System v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Bd., 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 423 A.2d 1125 (1981). | 2 | 1998–2015 |
Shuster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2007Claimant appealed to the Board requesting that it make its previous Order final to facilitate an appeal to this Court consistent with Shuster v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n), 745 A.2d 1282 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000)(holding that when the Board remands a case to the WCJ and a new decision is issued, appeal must again be made to the Board first, not the Commonwealth Court). 2007Claimant appealed to the Board requesting that it make its previous Order final to facilitate an appeal to this Court consistent with Shuster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n), 745 A.2d 1282 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000)(holding that when the Board remands a case to the WCJ and a new decision is issued, appeal must again be made to the Board first, not the Commonwealth Court). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Estate of Lakatosh
green
2 sentences2003In Estate of Lakatosh, 441 Pa.Super. 133 , 656 A.2d 1378 (1995), the Superior Court dealt with a similar situation in this way: "One of the reasons we decline to dismiss Roger's appeal is that his own actions effectively negate his prior non-conformance with Rule 2116. 2003In Estate of Lakatosh, 441 Pa.Super. 133 , 656 A.2d 1378 (1995), the Superior Court dealt with a similar situation in this way: "One of the reasons we decline to dismiss Roger's appeal is that his own actions effectively negate his prior non-conformance with Rule 2116. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
National Surety Corp. v. Lybrand
green
2 sentences1998Negligence of the employer is a defense only when it contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract....”’ Id. 256 A.D. at 235-36 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . 1998Negligence of the employer is a defense only when it contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract....”’ Id. 256 A.D. at 235-36 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . | 2 | 1988–1998 |
Glinka V.Workmens Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1996Glinka v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sears, Roebuck and Company), 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 175 , 521 A.2d 503 (1987), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 516 Pa. 644 , 533 A.2d 714 (1987). 1995Counsel for both parties agree that where the employer’s challenge to the cost of the medical treatment is based upon the issue of causation, as . distinguished from the reasonableness or necessity of the medical care, "this Honorable Court has granted the employer the power to unilaterally cease paying the disputed medical bills pending a judicial determination on the issue of their relatedness. [Glinka v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sears, Roebuck and Company), 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 175, 521 A.2d 503 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 516 Pa. 644 , 533 A.2d 714 (1987); Buc | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Heins v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.
neutral
2 sentences1989Employer, of course, bears the burden of proving willful misconduct, Heins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 111 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 604, 534 A.2d 592 (1987), and whether certain conduct constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law. 1989Employer, of course, bears the burden of proving willful misconduct, Heins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 111 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 604, 534 A.2d 592 (1987), and whether certain conduct constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Frumento v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REV.
green
2 sentences1989Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81 , 351 A.2d 631 (1976). 1989Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81 , 351 A.2d 631 (1976). | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Mutual Benefit Ins. v. Koser, C. and Abels, M.
green
1 sentence2025Co., 318 A.3d at 940 .6 The record supports the grant of Employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2025Candito, 734 A.2d at 77 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Davis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Henion v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Lead v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Berner v. Montour Township green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Newcomer Products v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| CVA, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Second Breath v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Elite Carpentry Contractors & General Accident Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Edwards v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Hernandez v. WCAB neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| DeGraw v. WCAB green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Gumm v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Calex, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Combine v. WCAB (National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Garza v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Frye v. United States red | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| ELDRIDGE Et Ux. v. MELCHER green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Umedman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Brookhaven Bap. Ch. v. Wcab (Halvorson) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Docherty v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.