Gnall v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

462 A.2d 930, 75 Pa. Commw. 525, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1781
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 19, 1983
DocketAppeal, No. 131 C.D. 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 462 A.2d 930 (Gnall v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gnall v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 462 A.2d 930, 75 Pa. Commw. 525, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1781 (Pa. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Gregory Gnall appeals from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, which reversed the referee’s decision and denied Gnall’s petition to set aside a final receipt.

Gnall suffered a compensable injury to his back on October 19, 1976, and his employer, Bethlehem Mines Corporation, made payments pursuant to The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act1 until December 10, 1976, when Gnall signed a final receipt.

On October 13, 1978, Gnall again injured his back while working, and on March 12, 1980, he filed both a new claim petition and a petition to set aside the final receipt.

[527]*527After several hearings, at which the parties presented evidence ■ on both petitions, the referee dismissed Gnall’s claim petition, but granted his petition to set aside the final receipt and awarded compensation.' ■

Bethlehem'appealed that part of the referee’s order' setting aside' the final receipt, and the board reversed the referee’s decision on the grounds that Gnall had not filed the petition within the three-year time limit prescribed by §434 of the Act.2

Gnall argues here, essentially, that because his employer did not raise the §434 time limit before the referee, it waived the right to do so on appeal.

Following our' limited scope of review,3 we must reject Gnall’s contention and affirm the board’s order.

“The time period ’provided by Section 434 is an absolute bar to the right to obtain additional compensation and courts may not extend the period unless the claimant proves by clear and precise evidence of more than doubtful weight that the receipt was procured by the employer’s fraud or its equivalent.” [528]*528Stewart v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 50 Pa. Commonwealth. Ct. 479, 481-82, 413 A.2d 437, 439 (1980).

Cnall does not argue that he met that requirement; indeed his brief does not even seek an opportunity to present evidence of fraud or its equivalent.

The cases have firmly established that the time limits of the Act are mandatory, and, in the absence of a legally sufficient justification, a tribunal has no authority to consider a late petition.4

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order

Now, July 19, 1983, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-81173, dated December 24,1981, is affirmed.

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

Related

Sharon Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
670 A.2d 1194 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)
Steibing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
665 A.2d 865 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
462 A.2d 930, 75 Pa. Commw. 525, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gnall-v-workmens-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-1983.