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.

KOZA v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION (06/10/59)

June 10, 1959

KOZA
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 15, April T., 1959, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, June T., 1958, No. 329, in case of John Koza v. United States Steel Corporation. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

Buell B. Whitehill, with him Whitehill and Tanner, for appellant.

David E. Cohen, with him Irwin M. Ringold, for appellee.

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

Author: Gunther

[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 71]

OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.

Claimant was employed by defendant as a timberman. On July 21, 1953, he claims, while lifting a fourteen foot timber his foot slipped injuring his back and heart. On May 24, 1954, he filed a claim petition for workmen's compensation. On June 1, 1954, defendant filed an answer and the case came up for hearing before the referee, who awarded compensation for total disability from July 21, 1953. The Board and the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the decision of the referee.

This appeal is before this Court to determine whether there is competent evidence in the record to sustain the finding that claimant sustained injuries, as a result of the accident.

Claimant contends that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the award of the compensation authorities. There is no question that claimant is totally disabled but the defendant's theory is that this disability is caused by a heart condition.

Judge RHODES (now President Judge) in Golinski v. Odin Stove Mfg. Co., 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 457, 48 A.2d 95, held that it is not within the province of the Court of Common Pleas to reverse the Board and substitute its own finding for that of the Board.Matters for the consideration of the court are confined to questions of law and, of course, include a determination of whether there is competent and substantial evidence in the record to justify the findings.

Our Supreme Court in Johnston v. Payne-Yost Company, 292 Pa. 509, 141 A. 481, gave us the following rule: "In cases arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the revisory powers of the appellate courts

[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 72]

    are limited to such consideration of the testimony as will enable the reviewing tribunal to ascertain whether the record contains competent evidence to support the findings of the compensation authorities, and ...


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.