Zerby v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n cases where Section 309(d) applies, use of the previously established AWW is required by Section 423 and is more reflective of the reality of employee's earnings. Furthermore, this statutory interpretation does not inadvertently punish claimants who suffer another injury after returning from a previous disabling work-related injury. To the extent Merkle conflicts with our holding today, it is overruled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

2. “situation (posed in Zerby ; Colpetzer and Merkle ) where there has already been a prior determination from within the workers' compensation system as to the claimant's AWW. The majority noted that Section 423 of the Act states that a notice of compensation payable cannot be modified unless it was materially incorrect. [5] In the majority's view, applying Section 309(d) in a way that would require a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

3. “[t]he mechanics of the legislative scheme demonstrate the General Assembly's intention that the baseline figure from which benefits are calculated should reasonably reflect the economic reality of a claimant's recent pre-injury earning experience, with some benefit of the doubt to be afforded to the claimant in the assessment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board