# Bigley v. Unity Auto Parts, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 5, 1981 · 496 Pa. 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646716

## Case

- **Full name:** John B. BIGLEY, Appellant, v. UNITY AUTO PARTS, INC. and the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 5, 1981
- **Citations:** 496 Pa. 262; 436 A.2d 1172; 1981 Pa. LEXIS 1018
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9646716

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that subrogation is provided in section 319 to prevent a “double recovery”

## Opinion text

*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from the knowledge of injury, whether that claim is being filed for the first time or as reinstatement of a previously withdrawn claim.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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646716. Public record. Not legal advice.