# Pennsylvania State University v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 17, 2006 · 911 A.2d 225

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755294

## Case

- **Full name:** The PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY/The PMA Insurance Group, Petitioners v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (HENSAL), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 17, 2006
- **Citations:** 911 A.2d 225; 2006 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 613
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Colins
- **Judges:** Colins, McGinley, Smith-Ribner, Friedman, Leadbetter, Jubelirer, Simpson
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9755294

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an employer can meet its burden of proving the extent of its contribution to a claimant’s defined-benefit pension by credible actuarial evidence; the employer need not identify actual contributions to the claimant’s pension

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
President Judge COLINS.
I dissent. I believe that, as a matter of law, the employer’s evidence, even if credited, is too speculative to sustain its burden of proof.
Therefore, I would affirm the Board.
Judges SMITH-RIBNER and FRIEDMAN join in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755294. Public record. Not legal advice.