Budzichowski v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding employer immune from suit for negligent treatment of compensable injury received at employer’s medical dispensary, a facility not open to the general public
• holding that a physician and a telephone operator were “in the same employ” where both worked a certain number of hours for defendant Bell Telephone, both were paid a fixed salary by Bell, and both worked on a full-time basis for Bell
• “Assuming, arguendo, that Tatrai does adopt the ‘dual capacity’ doctrine and that it is applicable to this case . . .”
• discussing whether a plant physician was entitled to coworker immunity from malpractice liability under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act
• court \assumed arguendo\ that the doctrine is good law in the course of finding that, on the facts of the case, it did not apply in any event
• court “assumed arguendo” that the doctrine is good law in the course of finding that, on the facts of the case, it did not apply in any event

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).