Bugay v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

How courts have described this case

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

• the questioning of a bank teller, as part of an investigation into the deposit of a questionably endorsed cheek, did not constitute an abnormal working condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sherrod v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-10-17· cited 80×
• Foster v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-03-17· cited 12×
• Parson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-05-18· cited 11×
• Deak v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-12-02· cited 8×
• Moss v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-12-13· cited 4×
• Doe v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-01-05· cited 4×
• Werner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-08-23· cited 3×
• Duffy v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-09-06· cited 1×
• Ermocedia v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-06-02
• Department of Public Welfare v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-07-12
• Nebroskie v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-12-02