# Crouse v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 3, 1992 · 529 Pa. 26

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264554

## Case

- **Full name:** Joyce E. CROUSE v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and Bureau of Risk and Insurance Management The TOWNSHIP OF ROSS v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 3, 1992
- **Citations:** 529 Pa. 26; 601 A.2d 789; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 4
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Files, Larsen, Nix, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264554

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Larsen and I would add the word “happening” in the explanation of the word “sustained” so that I read the pertinent section of the Act as saying, “injuries happening in the performance of their duties.”
Furthermore, I have never known remedial legislation to be enacted by a legislature as a means of reducing costs assessed against the taxpayers. On the contrary, remedial legislation is enacted for the benefit of those individuals intended to be favored because of their special circumstances in society. In my view, the Appellants are clearly entitled to the benefits of the Act since their decedents died *44 from injuries happening while in the performance of their duties.
LARSEN, J., joins-this, dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264554. Public record. Not legal advice.