# Romaine v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 22, 2006 · 587 Pa. 471

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707707

## Case

- **Full name:** Gloria ROMAINE, Appellant v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (BRYN MAWR CHATEAU NURSING HOME), Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 22, 2006
- **Citations:** 587 Pa. 471; 901 A.2d 477; 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1016
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9707707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that the Romaine Court majority effectively recast as a statute of repose a provision that was previously understood as a statute of limitations, without reference to the previous decisions

## Opinion text

Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the majority opinion in all respects save for its discussion of the allocation of the burden of proof regarding satisfaction of the statute of limitations found in Section 413 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. I join Justice Saylor’s Concurring Opinion with respect to this point. Indeed, as noted by Justice Saylor, the majority’s assertion that Section 413 “operates as a bar to the right as well as the remedy,” Majority Op. at 486, 901 A.2d at 485, implying it is a statute of repose, is in direct contravention of this Court’s prior and still-standing precedent. Smith v. WCAB (Concept Planners & Designers), 543 Pa.295, 670 A.2d 1146, 1148-49 (1996) (holding Section 413(a) to be a statute of limitations as “it operates in a *489 way that, practically speaking, extinguishes a remedy rather than a right”).
Justice EAKIN joins this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707707. Public record. Not legal advice.