# DeMarco v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 10, 1987 · 513 Pa. 526

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704947

## Case

- **Full name:** Leonard DeMARCO, Appellant, v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 10, 1987
- **Citations:** 513 Pa. 526; 522 A.2d 26; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 635
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 36 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/9704947

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Board erred in addressing the defense of res judicata where the party had not raised the defense before the referee

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704947. Public record. Not legal advice.