Case Name: Sabrina BOWMAN, Petitioner v. SUNOCO, INC., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2011-04-19
Citations: 17 A.3d 920
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sabrina BOWMAN, Petitioner v. SUNOCO, INC., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 17
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
Sabrina BOWMAN, Petitioner v. SUNOCO, INC., Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 19, 2011.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court, in a decision of first impression and of statewide substantial significance, disregard the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the plain meaning of the Penna [sic] Workers [sic] Compensation Act when it decided that a third party release in the form of a "Worker's Comp Disclaimer" signed in consideration for employment and receipt of compensation benefits, which further required the waiver and eternal release any [sic] and all rights to make a claim, commence a lawsuit, or recover damages or losses is not void against public policy when the language of the Disclaimer openly conflicts with the language of section 204(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers [sic] Compensation Act which expressly renders such agreements as void against public policy?