Appeal, No. 49, April T., 1959, from judgment of County Court of Allegheny County, No. A1181 of 1958, in case of Maurice G. Baker v. Pittsburgh Forgings Co. et al. Judgment affirmed.
Leonard P. Kane, Jr., with him Brandt, Riester, Brandt and Malone, for appellants.
Ralph F. Smith, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 469]
This is an appeal in a workmen's compensation case where the referee, the workmen's compensation board and the County court of Allegheny County held that
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 470]
dentures supplied to the claimant were compensable under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as variously amended. The section of the act involved in this appeal is Section 306(f) finally amended by the Act of 1956, February 28, P.L. 1120, Sec. 1, 77 PS § 531, to provide, inter alia, as follows:
"During the first six months after disability begins, the employer shall furnish reasonable surgical and medical services, medicines and supplies, as and when needed... In addition to the above services, medicines and supplies, hospital treatment, services and supplies and orthopedic appliances and protheses shall be furnished by the employer for the said period of six months."
In this case the appellee claimant, Maurice G. Baker, was struck violently on the top of the head by a heavy piece of steel, a clutch weight, which caused a concussion, laceration of the scalp and broke the appellee's dentures. He suffered total disability for an extended period of time and thereafter a partial disability to the present date. The dentures were destroyed directly and immediately by the physical violence of the blow to the appellee's head.
The appellant admits the destruction of the dentures but argues that the act did not contemplate the repair or replacement of artificial parts damaged by industrial accidents but merely the providing of artificial parts when this became necessary as the result of an accident. There seems to be no dispute as to the definition of protheses being an artificial substitute for a missing part as denture, hand, leg or eye. The question in dispute is whether damage as to such substitutes, ...