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.

TRAINO v. MURRAY CORPORATION AMERICA (04/16/59)

April 16, 1959

TRAINO
v.
MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 12, Feb. T., 1959, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Jan. T., 1958, No. 743, in case of John Traino v. Murray Corporation of America. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Matthew D. Mackie, with him Welles & Mackie, for appellant.

Joseph F. Dutka, for appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 424]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which the claimant, John Traino, while doing his ordinary work of lifting bathtubs from a conveyor line, sustained a

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 425]

    back injury diagnosed as a herniated lumbar intervertebral disc. The referee allowed compensation, finding that the circumstances constituted an accident. The board reversed and denied compensation.

The evidence shows that claimant had to reach overhead to the conveyor line, remove tubs weighing 140 pounds, then with a twisting back motion, place the tubs in stacks on the factory floor. During one such effort he felt a back pain, subsequently reported to the plant infirmary, and resulting medical examinations indicated the herniated lumbar intervertebral disc. Some temporary total disability resulted and there is also a residual partial disability of 20%, with a corresponding loss of earning power.

The court below found that the board's opinion did not go beyond "the activating cause of the injury as descriptive of its accidental nature" and failed to give consideration to the nature of the result and for that purpose remanded it to the board.

We agree with the court below that the application of the facts by the board to the determination as to whether they indicated an accident within the meaning of the compensation law, is a question of law. The record clearly shows that the board ignored entirely the problem of the casual relationship between the alleged accident and the subsequent physical condition of the claimant. We have held that even though a claimant may not have suffered an accident in the ordinary lay understanding of the term that "When the work or act performed by the employee is voluntary and not marked by any abnormal or unusual feature but there occurs an unexpected and unusual pathological result, that is, where the accident ...


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.