Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODGERS v. METHODIST EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL. (11/14/58)

November 14, 1958

RODGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL.



Appeal, No. 420, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1958, No. 563, in case of William Rodgers v. The Methodist Episcopal Hospital et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Edward R. Becker, with him Herman A. Becker, for appellant.

Paul H. Ferguson, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Wright

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 17]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which an award made by the referee was reversed by the Board. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the order of the Board, and claimant has appealed. The factual situation appears in the following excerpt from the opinion of the lower court:

"The claimant was employed by the defendant as a plumber. He testified before the referee that during the evening, after his regular working hours, he was engaged in preparing a board to be placed behind a sink in the x-ray room of the hospital and that his left hand was injured when the revolving blade of a power saw struck a knot in the board. He was alone at the time; there were no other witnesses to the accident. A fellow employee, called by the defendant, testified that shortly after the accident the claimant informed him that the board on which the claimant was working was not intended for use in the x-ray room but was part of a cabinet on which the claimant was working for a friend of his, and that at the claimant's request the fellow employee found and secreted the board, apparently to prevent discovery of the fact that claimant had been engaged in work other than for his employer. There was also evidence that the claimant's first account of the accident, on his admission to the accident ward of the hospital, was that a beam had fallen on his hand".

Stating "that the crux of the problem is the credibility of the witnesses", the Board found as a fact that appellant was not in the course of his employment at

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 18]

    the time of his injury. The questions involved on this appeal, as submitted by appellant, are as follows: "1. Are the ordinary standards governing the scope of judicial review of findings of the Workmen's Compensation Board modified where the Board has rejected the findings of the referee and where the main issue involved is credibility of testimony? 2. When viewed in light of the proper rule was the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board supported by substantial evidence or does it reflect a capricious disregard of competent evidence?"

Appellant argues "that the standard of judicial review ... must be modified in the case where the Workmen's Compensation Board has rejected the findings of the referee and where the main issue involved is the credibility of testimony". In support of his position he cites "a leading line of cases in the Federal Courts which have gone to the very roots of administrative law", and urges us to "adopt the body of law so well and, appellant submits, reasonably developed in the Federal Courts". Whether or not the federal cases contemplate a different standard of judicial review, and we are not convinced that they do,*fn1 appellant misconceives the extent of the authority of the Workmen's Compensation Board as firmly established by our prior cases.

Section 423 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act*fn2 reads in pertinent part as follows: "In any such appeal the board may disregard the findings of fact of the referee, and may examine the testimony taken before such referee, and if it deem ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.