Appeal, No. 157, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1957, No. 10244, in case of Harry E. Rothkugel v. Central Motor Parts Company et al. Appeal dismissed.
Joseph F. May, for appellants.
David N. Rosen, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (hirt, J., absent).
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 332]
This is an appeal in a workmen's compensation case. The referee found that the claimant suffered a 40% partial disability as a result of a compensable injury and awarded compensation accordingly. The Workmen's Compensation Board affirmed the referee's award and the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia affirmed the board and dismissed the appeal.
Harry E. Rothkugel, the claimant appellee sustained bruises and cuts of the great and two adjoining toes of the left foot, fracture of one toe, and inflammation and swelling of the knee when while in the course of his employment on January 25, 1955, a generator weighing about thirty pounds fell on his left foot.
By agreement the claimant was paid compensation for eighteen and six-sevenths weeks and signed a final receipt on August 16, 1955. He had been under treatment and examination by appellant's physician, from the time of the accident almost to the date of the hearing on February 21, 1957. Surgery had been performed for the removal of a torn medial meniscus from his left knee on June 13, 1955. He worked a total of 9 weeks sporadically from August, 1955 to the date of the hearing.
The claimant filed this petition for reinstatement of compensation on October 28, 1955 alleging pain, swelling, and limitation of movement in his left knee and inflammation and pain in his left foot. The appellant
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 333]
denied that any disability existed from August 16, 1955 as the result of the injury of January 25, 1955.
At the hearing, in addition to claimant's testimony concerning the injuries he sustained, his condition in August, 1955 and up to date, as a result of said injuries, Dr. Robert P. Blumberg, testified he found claimant to be suffering from both a leg and a back condition, the combined effect of which resulted in a 75 to 80 per cent partial disability. On cross-examination, Dr. Blumberg qualified his opinion by stating that he could not positively relate the back injury to the accident, but testified that without the back disability he would estimate the appellee's disability as 40 to 45 per cent. The referee and the board believed the testimony of the claimant and Dr. Blumberg and awarded compensation. The court below in an able opinion by HAGAN, J., set forth the law applicable to this case. "There are certain well settled principles of law which must be kept in mind in considering a case of this nature: (1) The Workmen's Compensation Act is a remedial statute and is to receive a liberal interpretation (Gower v. Mackes, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 41); (2) since in this case the Board found in favor of the claimant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to him and he must be given the ...