Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM ROCK v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (YOUNGSTOWN CARTAGE COMPANY) (10/30/85)

decided: October 30, 1985.

WILLIAM ROCK, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (YOUNGSTOWN CARTAGE COMPANY), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of William Rock v. Youngstown Cartage Company, No. A-83520.

COUNSEL

Lawrence R. Chaban, Yablonski, King, Costello & Leckie, for petitioner.

S. James Goldman, P.C., Assistant Chief Counsel, for respondents, State Workmen's Insurance Fund.

Judges Craig and MacPhail, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 492]

William Rock (Claimant) appeals here an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) upholding a referee's decision dismissing his claim petition for benefits under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ยงยง 1-1066. We will vacate and remand the case for further findings.

Claimant, a resident of Pennsylvania, was hired by Youngstown Cartage Company (Employer) at its corporate office in Youngstown, Ohio on May 12, 1979, as a truck driver. On May 16, 1979, Claimant signed a form agreement in Ohio provided by Employer that stated, in pertinent part, that (1) this form agreement was to be used only in cases where the workmen's compensation law of the State of Ohio is to be the exclusive remedy and (2) where

     there is the possibility of conflict, with respect to the application of workmen's compensation laws because the contract of employment is entered into and all or some portion of the work is or is to be performed in a state or states other than Ohio, the employer and the employee may agree to be bound by the laws of this state or by the laws of some other state in which all or

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 493]

    some portion of the work of the employee is to be performed. Such agreement shall be in writing. . . . If the agreement is to be bound by the laws of this state . . . then the employee is entitled to compensation and benefits . . . and the rights of the employee and his dependents under the laws of this state shall be the exclusive remedy against the rights of the employer on account of injury, disease, or death in the course of and arising out of his employment.

The agreement further provides:

The parties to this agreement represent to the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation and the Industrial Commission of Ohio that there is possibility of conflict with respect to the application of the Workmen's Compensation Laws because the contract of employment is entered into and all or some portion of the work is, or is to be, performed in different states. . . .

Therefore, . . . the employer and said employees mutually agree to be bound by the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Ohio; and it is mutually agreed that . . . the rights of the employee or his, or their, dependents under the laws of the State of Ohio shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.