Chik-Fil-A v. Workers' 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.

• holding expert testimony incompetent where expert had “no knowledge of [c]laimant’s prior relevant medical records and treatment[] or any previous diagnostic test results” (emphasis added)
• stating that a claimant asserting an aggravation of a preexisting condition must establish that (i) the aggravation arose in the course of employment; (ii) the aggravation was related to the employment; and (iii) disability resulted
• first citing Hayden v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 479 A.2d 631 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); and then citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Valsamaki), 593 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)
• testimony of a medical expert was not competent to establish causation where the expert relied on an incomplete and inaccurate medical history and testified that if the claimant’s history was not as reported to him, his opinion would be different

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).