holding that the Board erred in addressing the defense of res judicata where the party had not raised the defense before the referee
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Board erred in addressing the defense of res judicata where the party had not raised the defense before the referee
- opining that appellate court consideration of matters not raised by trial counsel result in the trial becoming "merely a dress rehearsal"
- Workers' Comp. Bd. could not consider issue not first brought before initial factfinder
- rationale of Dilliplaine is “perfectly apposite in administrative law cases”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I disassociate myself from any implication that the strict doctrine of waiver applicable to trials applies in workmen’s compensation proceedings. These proceedings are informal and the technical rules of procedure are relaxed. See, e.g., Lako v. Schlessinger, 208 Pa.Superior Ct. 85, 220 A.2d 665 (1966); Gonzales v. O’Donnell’s Broad St. Bar, Inc., 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 170 , 203 A.2d 583 (1964). See also 2 A. Barbieri, Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation, § 6.19 (1975). Importing a rigid waiver doctrine into workmen’s compensation proceedings is neither desirable nor consistent with the goal of maintaining informality in the hearing procedure in compensation cases.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring opinion.