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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2023Appeal Bd. (Seaman), 8 A.3d 1004, 1009 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Socha v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2001See id. 2001See id. | 1 | 1 |
USX Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2000Claimant further contends that the only evidence that Employer submitted in defending the claim were the results of a 1988 dosimetry study presented during the testimony of Dr. Busis, to which Claimant avers he objected. 2 The requirements for establishing a work-related, compensable hearing loss were addressed by this Court in USX Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Way), 754 A.2d 64, 67 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), as follows: In order to establish a right to compensation, a claimant has the burden of proving that he has sustained a permanent loss of hearing that is medically established | 1 | 1 |
Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp.green2 sentences1999See Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984). 1999See Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. WCAB (JONES & L. STEEL C.)
green
2 sentences1993An analogous situation arose in Martin v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation), 111 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 201, 533 A.2d 810 (1987), where claimant Charles Martin (Martin), a steel mill worker, knew that he had a substantial work-related hearing loss in 1976 and had to wear hearing aids in both ears by 1979 but did not file his claim petition until 1984. 1993In Martin v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 111 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 201, 533 A.2d 810 (1987), a steelworker's doctor informed him of a work-related hearing loss in 1979 and prescribed hearing aids. | 2 | 1993–1993 |
USX Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2000It concluded that the legislature did not intend to “vitiate the normal principle that an employer is responsible for a disability caused by a combination of work-related and [nonwork-related] factors if the work-related factors were a substantial contributing factor to the injury even though a claimant may have been more susceptible to that type of injury because of his age or preexisting condition.” USX Corp., 727 A.2d at 166 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Washington Steel Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1999Because the WCJ accepted his medical expert’s testimony that Claimant’s hearing loss of 4.9% was caused by aging and 9.8 % was due to other causes, Employer contends that the Board erred in reversing the WCJ because Claimant failed to establish that he suffered a work-related hearing loss, making it indistinguishable from this Court’s recent decision in Washington Steel Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Waugh), 734 A.2d 81 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hermanson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1994Moreover, we note that this case is readily distinguishable from Hermanson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kaiser Aluminum), 156 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 556, 628 A.2d 514 (1993), which is cited by Employer and in which we held that the date on which the claimant’s doctor informed him that he suffered a work-related hearing loss was not dispositive. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cyclops Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1993Cyclops Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sray), 116 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 421, 541 A.2d 851 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Taras v. Wausau Ins. Companies
green
2 sentences1992Recently, in Taras v. Wausau Insurance Companies, 412 Pa.Super. 37 , 602 A.2d 882 (1992), this court illustrated the fine distinctions between actions arising as a result of the carrier's mishandling of claims which have as their ultimate basis the underlying work-related claim, and actions which are not based upon an injury compensable under the Act and seek redress for a separate injury. 1992Recently, in Taras v. Wausau Insurance Companies, 412 Pa.Super. 37 , 602 A.2d 882 (1992), this court illustrated the fine distinctions between actions arising as a result of the carrier's mishandling of claims which have as their ultimate basis the underlying work-related claim, and actions which are not based upon an injury compensable under the Act and seek redress for a separate injury. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.