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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mashuda Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2021Mashuda Corp., 706 A.2d at 376 (“Once [the] claimant’s disability has terminated, [the] employer is no longer responsible for paying benefits.”). 2021Additionally, relying on Mashuda Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Ferrari), 706 A.2d 374, 376 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), which states that “there is no reason to require the employer to pay the claimant benefits up until the date of the WCJ’s decision when the claimant files a claim petition and the WCJ establishes liability for a closed period[,]” Employer asserts that it had no obligation to pay for medical expenses incurred by Claimant after August 7, 2018, and, therefore, there was no error in the WCJ’s failing to require payment beyond that period. | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2021(Employer’s Br. at 23-24.) Finally, Employer contends that Claimant included numerous documents in his brief that were never submitted to the WCJ, which this Court may not consider on appeal under Watson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 990 A.2d 164, 167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and Barran v. State Board of Medicine, 670 A.2d 765 , 700 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 . 2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 . | 1 | 1 |
Soja v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2017Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “[S]urveillance films are properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the claimant’s testimony and/or the claimant’s evidence.” Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 7 (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). “[S]uch evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing facts.” Id. at 1157 . | 1 | 1 |
Golley v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2003Golley v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AAA Mid-Atlantic, Inc.), 747 A.2d 1253, 1255 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 569 Pa. 696 , 803 A.2d 736 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2017If a petition is filed for a closed period of disability, there will be a specific end date on the petition which will precede the date the petition was filed. 8 When a claimant files a claim petition listing that he or she is seeking a disability extending “to present,” i.e., the date the petition is filed, the claimant is obviously indicating an ongoing disability which, in the case of an unanswered or untimely answered petition, will provide the claimant with a rebuttable presumption which will sustain her burden of proof of a continuing disability from the last date the answer should have 1997When a claimant files a claim petition listing that he or she is seeking a disability extending "to present”, i.e., the date the petition is filed, the claimant is obviously indicating an ongoing disability which, in the case of an unanswered or untimely answered petition, will provide the claimant with a rebuttable presumption which will sustain her burden.of proof of a continuing disability from the last date the answer should have been filed throughout the pendency of the ligated matter, thus satisfying the claimant’s burden under Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), | 2 | 1997–2017 |
Barran v. State Board of Medicine
green
1 sentence2021(Employer’s Br. at 23-24.) Finally, Employer contends that Claimant included numerous documents in his brief that were never submitted to the WCJ, which this Court may not consider on appeal under Watson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 990 A.2d 164, 167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and Barran v. State Board of Medicine, 670 A.2d 765 , 700 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 2. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hamot Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2017Hamot Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 645 A.2d 466 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Connor v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1995E.g., Connor v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Super Sucker, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 , 624 A.2d 757 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 676 , 636 A.2d 635 (1993). 1995E.g., Connor v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Super Sucker, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 , 624 A.2d 757 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 676 , 636 A.2d 635 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hoffa v. Person
neutral
1 sentence1914If any one of these essentials was partly incorrect, if the claimant was mistaken or the claim disputed, evidence taken before the court or an auditor would be necessary to properly determine the disputed questions: Hoffa v. Person, supra. For illustration, a claimant files his claim for wages and a part of the time claimed for is beyond that permitted by the statute; or files a claim for wages on a quantum meruit which is disputed; or the character of the services or labor claimed for may, upon investigation, be such as would not come wholly within the provisions of the act. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.