holding that a petition seeking to add a psychiatric condition to a previously accepted back injury from over ten years prior was governed by the limitations period of Section 413(a) because the later injury “arose as a direct result of” the earlier injury
How later courts described this case
- holding that a petition seeking to add a psychiatric condition to a previously accepted back injury from over ten years prior was governed by the limitations period of Section 413(a) because the later injury “arose as a direct result of” the earlier injury
- “[A] statute of repose may also prevent the accrual of a cause of action where the final element necessary for its creation occurs beyond the time period established by the statute. At the end of the time period specified in the statute, the cause of action ceases to exist, unless the claimant can bring himself within any tolling provision enunciated in that statute.”
- “A statute of limitations is procedural and extinguishes the remedy rather than the cause of action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
Concurring.
While I dissented in Jeanes Hospital v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hass), 872 A.2d 159 (Pa.2005), the majority of my colleagues were of the opposite position, making that the law of the Commonwealth; hence I join the Majority Opinion herein.