Opinion

Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

  • 534 Pa. 327
  • 632 A.2d 1302
  • 1993 Pa. LEXIS 232
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 12, 1993
Status
Published
Author
Cappy
On the bench
Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Montemuro
Cited by
76 cases

applying issue preclusion to bar a modification/termination petition seeking to relitigate the original medical diagnosis under lying a WCJ’s finding of disability and noting that failure to do so would result in claimants continually being harassed with petitions and hearings at which they would be forced to redemonstrate or redefend their claims

How later courts described this case

  • applying issue preclusion to bar a modification/termination petition seeking to relitigate the original medical diagnosis under lying a WCJ’s finding of disability and noting that failure to do so would result in claimants continually being harassed with petitions and hearings at which they would be forced to redemonstrate or redefend their claims
  • the doctrine of broad res judicata or issue preclusion forecloses re-litigation in a later action of an issue of fact or law that was litigated and necessary to the original judgment
  • res judicata or collateral estoppel “forecloses re-litigation in a later action, of an issue of fact or law which was actually litigated and which was necessary to the original judgment ”
  • granting preclusive effect to factual findings of worker’s compensation referee

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CAPPY, Justice,

concurring.

I join the Majority Opinion. I would likewise reverse the judgment and order of the Commonwealth Court based upon the unrefuted and unrebutted testimony of Appellant’s expert, Dr. Klemens, that pneumoconiosis is irreversible (R. 30a-31), which testimony was corroborated by employer’s expert, Dr. Ketter (R. 23a). I agree that an opening of the original, unappealed determination that Appellant suffered from work-related pneumoconiosis constituted impermissible relitigation.

I write separately to point out that there may be circumstances where a once irreversible disease may, due to advances in medical science, become reversible and, in such event, an employer should have the right to establish that fact at a subsequent workmen’s compensation termination hearing.

NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY and MONTEMURO, JJ., join.

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.