# Schreffler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 18, 2002 · 567 Pa. 527

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712144

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry SCHREFFLER, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (KOCHER COAL COMPANY), Appeal of Kocher Coal Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 18, 2002
- **Citations:** 567 Pa. 527; 788 A.2d 963; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 100
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Former, Zarpala
- **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/9712144

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “payments of medical expenses can constitute ‘payments of compensation’ for purposes of section 315 and will toll the limitations period in an appropriate case”

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
ZAPPALA, Chief Justice.
I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court. I write separately, however, to note that it may prove difficult for a claimant to adduce direct evidence that the employer intended the payments for medical expenses to be “payments *543 of compensation” for purposes of Section 315. Thus, I merely emphasize, as recognized in footnote 3 on page 970 of the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the court, that in some cases, the evaluation of the employer’s intent may have to be determined from what a “reasonable person” would deduce from the evidence. In summarizing its holding, the author goes on to state that “[t]he claimant cannot meet his or her burden by showing that payments of expenses have been made, but must adduce additional evidence as to the employer’s intent in making the payments.” Slip Op. at 971 (emphasis added). This latter statement should not be interpreted as inconsistent with the former for as to do so may render the claimant’s burden an impossible one to overcome.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712144. Public record. Not legal advice.