noting that subrogation is provided in section 319 to prevent a “double recovery”
How later courts described this case
- noting that subrogation is provided in section 319 to prevent a “double recovery”
- "[Tihere is an implied authority at the administrative level to accept a unilateral request of withdrawal by the party presenting the claim prior to adjudication or agreement. ... The power to reinstate a gratuitous unilateral withdrawal should be liberally exercised absent a significant showing of prejudice by the other parties involved.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Uselton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 138 Pa. Commw. 497 (1991)
Bigley, however, is factually distinguishable and does not address the crucial issue now before us.
The opinion
*275 ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that this case should be remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for consideration of reinstatement of appellant’s claim.
The three year statute of limitations acts as a presumptive bar to the filing of a claim beyond three years from the knowledge of injury, whether that claim is being filed for the first time or as reinstatement of a previously withdrawn claim. Nonetheless, circumstances have been recognized which will extend the right to file a claim petition. See Helstrom v. Commonwealth, Workman’s Compensation Appeal Board, 43 Pa.Cmwlth. 113, 116 , 401 A.2d 882, 884 (1979).
In the exceptional circumstances of this case, an evidentiary hearing on remand is essential to determine the reasons underlying appellant’s withdrawal of his claim and whether reinstatement is appropriate.
LARSEN, J., joins in this concurring opinion.