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

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 28, 1995 · 542 Pa. 364

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763218

## Case

- **Full name:** ARMCO, INC., Appellant, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MATTERN), Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 28, 1995
- **Citations:** 542 Pa. 364; 667 A.2d 710; 1995 Pa. LEXIS 1278
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Montemuro, Rule, Administration
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9763218

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763218. Public record. Not legal advice.