# Cudo v. Hallstead Foundry, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 24, 1988 · 517 Pa. 553

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762623

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara CUDO, W/O Lewis Cudo, Deceased, Appellant, v. HALLSTEAD FOUNDRY, INC., Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 24, 1988
- **Citations:** 517 Pa. 553; 539 A.2d 792; 1988 Pa. LEXIS 93
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Stout
- **Cited by:** 58 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/9762623

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “the [WCAB] may only grant a rehearing where there is ‘after[-]discovered, noncumulative evidence [that] could not have been, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, produced at the original hearing’”
- discussing power of Board to grant rehearing

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Recognizing that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is intended to be remedial in nature, I join the position espoused in the Opinion of the Court. All too often claimants for workmen’s compensation benefits are not represented by counsel before the referee who hears evidence and makes findings of fact. The strict view of the dissent, which would permit a claimant only one opportunity to meet his or her substantial burden irrespective of the dictates of justice, is not appropriate in this area of jurisprudence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762623. Public record. Not legal advice.