Pipeline Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pipeline Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds)

133 A.3d 291, 635 Pa. 192, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 403, 2016 WL 886673

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 8, 2016

Docket384 WAL 2015 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.3d 291 (Pipeline Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pipeline Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds), 133 A.3d 291, 635 Pa. 192, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 403, 2016 WL 886673 (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*193 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2016, 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:

(1) [Did t]he Commonwealth Court err[] because [§ 601(a)(10), 77 P.S. § 1031] unambiguously provides that the employee must be within the course and scope of his employment at the time he provides aid and is injured, not merely be in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the emergency arose as the Commonwealth Court held[?]

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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

*193 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2016, 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:

(1) [Did t]he Commonwealth Court err[] because [§ 601(a)(10), 77 P.S. § 1031] unambiguously provides that the employee must be within the course and scope of his employment at the time he provides aid and is injured, not merely be in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the emergency arose as the Commonwealth Court held[?]

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.3d 291, 635 Pa. 192, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 403, 2016 WL 886673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipeline-systems-inc-v-workers-compensation-appeal-board-pounds-pa-2016.