Opinion

Boeing Vertol Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

  • 107 Pa. Commw. 388
  • 528 A.2d 1020
  • 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2294
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 15, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Doyle
On the bench
Crumlish, Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, Colins, Palladino
Cited by
16 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.0%

claimant testified that he had at least a dozen incidents of stress with supervisors that caused him to leave work prior to his heart attack

How later courts described this case

  • claimant testified that he had at least a dozen incidents of stress with supervisors that caused him to leave work prior to his heart attack

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*396 Concurring Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I concur with both the analysis of the issues and the conclusion reached by the majority, and write only to make clear that my dissent in Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (DeMay), 87 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 558, 568 , 487 A.2d 1053, 1058 (1985), where I would have required an unusual stressful condition for the particular position in question, dealt with a situation of psychological stimulus causing a psychic injury. As the majority opinion correctly points out, the injury presented to us here is a cardiac physical injury, not a psychic injury. See Griesinger v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Atlantic Richfield Co.), 94 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 332 , 503 A.2d 1016 (1986); Yuhas v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 82 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 390 , 476 A.2d 1377 (1984).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.