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 3 courts 1974–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCloskey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1992AND NOW this 16th day of June, 1992, the Application for Reargument is granted and the case is remanded to the referee for the presentation of evidence under the Kusenko/McCloskey standard. [Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984); McCloskey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 501 Pa. 93 , 460 A.2d 237 (1983)]. 1992AND NOW this 16th day of June, 1992, the Application for Reargument is granted and the case is remanded to the referee for the presentation of evidence under the Kusenko/McCloskey standard. [Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984); McCloskey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 501 Pa. 93 , 460 A.2d 237 (1983)]. | 1 | 2 |
Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2001“With regard to the McCloskey standard, ... it is not a requirement that a medical expert, in order to establish causation, use the magical words of ‘substantial contributing factor’, rather, it is sufficient that a medical opinion express with reasonable certainty the standard set forth in McCloskey.” Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (James), 108 Pa.Cmwlth.68, 528 A.2d 1078, 1079 (1987). 2001“With regard to the McCloskey standard, ... it is not a requirement that a medical expert, in order to establish causation, use the magical words of ‘substantial contributing factor’, rather, it is sufficient that a medical opinion express with reasonable certainty the standard set forth in McCloskey.” Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (James), 108 Pa.Cmwlth.68, 528 A.2d 1078, 1079 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp.
green
2 sentences1992AND NOW this 16th day of June, 1992, the Application for Reargument is granted and the case is remanded to the referee for the presentation of evidence under the Kusenko/McCloskey standard. [Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984); McCloskey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 501 Pa. 93 , 460 A.2d 237 (1983)]. 1992AND NOW this 16th day of June, 1992, the Application for Reargument is granted and the case is remanded to the referee for the presentation of evidence under the Kusenko/McCloskey standard. [Kusenko v. Republic Steel Corp., 506 Pa. 104 , 484 A.2d 374 (1984); McCloskey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 501 Pa. 93 , 460 A.2d 237 (1983)]. | 2 | 1987–1992 |
Commonwealth v. McCloskey
green
2 sentences1974Upon review of the history of the grand jury proceedings and the fundamental privilege against self-incrimination, “[i]n seeking to balance society’s interest in the grand jury’s freedom of orderly inquiry and a *64 witness’s right to exercise Ms privilege against self incrimination knowingly and intelligently,” Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra at 143, 277 A.2d at 777 , we conclude that the McCloskey rule is to be interpreted broadly as a remedial rule 9 and that the evidence in tMs case satisfies the “in any way based” language of McCloshey. 1974Upon review of the history of the grand jury proceedings and the fundamental privilege against self-incrimination, “[i]n seeking to balance society’s interest in the grand jury’s freedom of orderly inquiry and a *64 witness’s right to exercise Ms privilege against self incrimination knowingly and intelligently,” Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra at 143, 277 A.2d at 777 , we conclude that the McCloskey rule is to be interpreted broadly as a remedial rule 9 and that the evidence in tMs case satisfies the “in any way based” language of McCloshey. | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
neutral
2 sentences1988Thus, we have, declined to apply the McCloskey rule in a disability case, Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Luketich), 92 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 605 , 500 A.2d 501 (1985). 1988Thus, we have, declined to apply the McCloskey rule in a disability case, Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Luketich), 92 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 605 , 500 A.2d 501 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth, Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Uchaker
neutral
2 sentences1987Bureau of Workers’ Compensation v. Uchaker, 93 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 400 , 501 A.2d 703 (1985). 2 With regard to application of the McCloskey standard, this Court held in Uchaker that it is not a requirement that a medical expert, in order to establish causation, use the magical words of “substantial contributing factor”; rather, it is sufficient that a medical opinion express with reasonable certainty the standard set forth in McCloskey . 1987Bureau of Workers’ Compensation v. Uchaker, 93 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 400 , 501 A.2d 703 (1985). 2 With regard to application of the McCloskey standard, this Court held in Uchaker that it is not a requirement that a medical expert, in order to establish causation, use the magical words of “substantial contributing factor”; rather, it is sufficient that a medical opinion express with reasonable certainty the standard set forth in McCloskey . | 1 | 1987–1987 |