Riddle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Riddle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

958 A.2d 1040

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Riddle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Read the opinion of the Court — 603 Pa. 74 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 14, 2008·No. 96 WAL 2008·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED with respect to the following question as rephrased for clarity:

Under Section 306(b) of the Worker’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 512(2), may an employer meet its burden of proof to justify modification of an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an injured non-resident employee, based on an earning power assessment which focused on the location of the employee’s residence, as opposed to the location where the injury occurred?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED with respect to the following question as rephrased for clarity:

Under Section 306(b) of the Worker’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 512(2), may an employer meet its burden of proof to justify modification of an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an injured non-resident employee, based on an earning power assessment which focused on the location of the employee’s residence, as opposed to the location where the injury occurred?

Riddle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 958 A.2d 1040 (Pa. 2008).

Pincite

958 A.2d 1040 (Riddle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.