Lucarelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

546 A.2d 151, 119 Pa. Commw. 72, 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 681
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 22, 1988
DocketAppeal 1003 C.D. 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 546 A.2d 151 (Lucarelli 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
Lucarelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 546 A.2d 151, 119 Pa. Commw. 72, 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 681 (Pa. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge McGinley,

This is an appeal by Rosalie Lucarelli (Claimant) from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of the referee which dismissed Claimant’s petition for compensation benefits.

Unfortunately, because of numerous substantial defects in Claimant’s brief which impair our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we must quash this appeal without reaching the merits. Wicker v. Civil Service Commission, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 548, 460 A.2d 407 (1983).

Claimant’s brief materially deviates from the requirements set forth in Chapter 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P. 2101-2189. Defects in the Claimant’s brief include: 1) failure to include a statement of jurisdiction in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2114; 2) failure to include a verbatim text of the order in question in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2115; 3) failure to include a statement of the questions involved in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a); 4) failure to include a statement of the case in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2117; and 5) failure to include a summary of the argument in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2118.

*74 The mandatory language of Pa. R. A.P. 2116(a) clearly and emphatically mandates the inclusion of a statement of questions involved in an appellate brief. 1

Accordingly, as Claimant has failed to properly state any questions for our consideration, we shall consider none. Wicker at 553, 460 A.2d at 409. We therefore conclude Claimants appeal must be quashed.

Order

And Now, August 22, 1988, the appeal of Rosalie Lucarelli from the order of the Board is hereby quashed.

1

Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) provides in part:

This rule is to be considered in the highest decree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby. . . .

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

Related

D. Becirovic v. DHS
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
P. Sam v. WCAB (Sands Bethworks Gaming LLC)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
Barber v. Tax Review Board
850 A.2d 866 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Izzi v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
654 A.2d 176 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Hartman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
636 A.2d 1245 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Rumbaugh v. Beck
601 A.2d 319 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
In re Condemnation of the Property of the Estate of Ciaffoni
556 A.2d 504 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
Huffman v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.
555 A.2d 287 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
Shapowal v. Commonwealth
553 A.2d 487 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
546 A.2d 151, 119 Pa. Commw. 72, 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucarelli-v-workmens-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-1988.