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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kohler v. McCrory Storesgreen2 sentences2004See Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130 , 615 A.2d 27, 30 (1992). 2004See Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130 , 615 A.2d 27, 30 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
Chik-Fil-A v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2022Chik-Fil-A v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mollick), 792 A.2d 678, 689 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Pawlosky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2008See City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Zuczek), 541 Pa. 435 , 664 A.2d 90 (1995) (explaining that the Section 301(e) presumption offers a procedural or evidentia-ry advantage to a claimant who proves an occupational disease and employment in an occupation where such disease is a hazard and stating that an employer may rebut the presumption, inter alia, through competent medical expert testimony); see also Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987) (stating that once claimant meets his/her burden under Section 301(e) claimant be 2008See City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Zuczek), 541 Pa. 435 , 664 A.2d 90 (1995) (explaining that the Section 301(e) presumption offers a procedural or evidentia-ry advantage to a claimant who proves an occupational disease and employment in an occupation where such disease is a hazard and stating that an employer may rebut the presumption, inter alia, through competent medical expert testimony); see also Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987) (stating that once claimant meets his/her burden under Section 301(e) claimant be | 1 | 1 |
City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2008See City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Zuczek), 541 Pa. 435 , 664 A.2d 90 (1995) (explaining that the Section 301(e) presumption offers a procedural or evidentia-ry advantage to a claimant who proves an occupational disease and employment in an occupation where such disease is a hazard and stating that an employer may rebut the presumption, inter alia, through competent medical expert testimony); see also Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987) (stating that once claimant meets his/her burden under Section 301(e) claimant be 2008See City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Zuczek), 541 Pa. 435 , 664 A.2d 90 (1995) (explaining that the Section 301(e) presumption offers a procedural or evidentia-ry advantage to a claimant who proves an occupational disease and employment in an occupation where such disease is a hazard and stating that an employer may rebut the presumption, inter alia, through competent medical expert testimony); see also Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987) (stating that once claimant meets his/her burden under Section 301(e) claimant be | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
St. Joseph's Hospital v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.