Opinion

ARMCO, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

  • 542 Pa. 364
  • 667 A.2d 710
  • 1995 Pa. LEXIS 1278
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 28, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Nix
On the bench
Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Montemuro, Rule, Administration
Cited by
16 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.5%

stating that the terms of the WCA may not be disregarded under the guise of pursuing the spirit of the statute

How later courts described this case

  • stating that the terms of the WCA may not be disregarded under the guise of pursuing the spirit of the statute

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NIX, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I remain of the view that the discovery rule should not be limited to occupational diseases but should also extend to injuries under section 301(c)(1), 77 P.S. § 411(1), of the Act. See Eddy v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd., 534 Pa. 302 , 632 A.2d 873 (1993) (Papadakos, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s reversal of the Commonwealth Court’s award of workers’ compensation benefits to Appellant.

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.