Readinger v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · Commonwealth v. Miller · Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Ass'n · Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Martha Co. · South Hills Health System v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 520. The Board responds that Dr. Kauffman was qualified as an expert, and he testified that he used the Peer Review Transcript to render his opinion. It follows, therefore, that the Peer Review Transcript is the type of information that experts rely upon. We reject this tautology. This Court has explained that an expert may rely on information made known to the expert at or before the hearing, so long as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“or.” Readinger v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Epler Masonry), 855 A.2d 952, 956 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (quoting Appeal of Martin, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 303 , 381 A.2d 1321, 1322 (1978)). Interpreting”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the information itself is admissible or is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.