City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

17 A.3d 917, 610 Pa. 1, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 847
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 6, 2011·No. 564 WAL 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*2 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2011 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that, in a petition to suspend compensation benefits based upon an alleged voluntary withdrawal from the workforce, the employer bears the burden of showing by the totality of the circumstances that the claimant has chosen not to return to the workforce?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 17 A.3d 917, 610 Pa. 1, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 847 (Pa. 2011).

17 A.3d 917 (City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. ROMANSKY
17 A.3d 917 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)