# Sell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001 · 565 Pa. 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728410

## Case

- **Full name:** Joan SELL, Appellant, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LNP Engineering), Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 22, 2001
- **Citations:** 565 Pa. 114; 771 A.2d 1246; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 1067
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Saylor, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 76 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/9728410

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that this Court’s role in a workers’ compensation case is simply to “determine whether, upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, the WCJ’s findings have the requisite measure of support in the record”
- holding that the Act is remedial in nature, intended to benefit injured workers and is to be liberally construed

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
Concurring.
Indeed, as stated in the dissent authored by Mr. Justice Zappala, “... the majority would seemingly require a claimant to know absolutely the causal relationship between an injury and its work relatedness ...” I cannot join in that view. On this record the claimant suspected, but did not know of the possible causal connection between her symptoms and the work environment. Suspicion of a possible causality is less than knowledge of it. The record clearly demonstrates a reasonably diligent effort by claimant to ascertain whether her suspicion had medical foundation, eventuating in a medical confirmation of her suspicion on August 31, 1993. I, thus, concur in the result, but not entirely in the rationale as expressed by the majority.
Justice SAYLOR joins this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728410. Public record. Not legal advice.