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.

SHANNON v. TURISSINI (ET AL. (09/16/59)

September 16, 1959

SHANNON
v.
TURISSINI (ET AL., APPELLANT).



Appeal, No. 232, Oct. T., 1959, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 91, in case of Charles E. Shannon v. Peter Turissini et al. Decision affirmed; reargument refused October 19, 1959.

COUNSEL

David B. Skillman, for appellant.

John T. Riley, with him William J. P. Collins, and Brennen & Riley, for appellee.

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

Author: Woodside

[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 523]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County affirming an order of the Workmen's Compensation Board awarding compensation to the claimant Charles E. Shannon for the loss of an eye. See Section 306(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 PS ยง 513.

On December 28, 1956, the claimant sustained an injury to his left eye when it was struck by a rope he was using to start the motor of a gas engine. The eye was so badly injured that it had to be enucleated.

Prior to the accident, when the claimant was 13 years of age, he had suffered an injury to the same eye, producing a traumatic cataract which was removed. The claimant testified that since the removal of the cataract "I could still see light, and with a glass after

[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 524]

    my cataract was removed I could read the chart ... but I couldn't use glasses because I see double, ..."

The courts of this Commonwealth have decided a number of cases dealing with the effect of a traumatic cataract removal under section 306(c) of the act.

The evidence in virtually all of these cases has been similar, and it is safe to assume that there is no substantial distinction in the physical conditions of the claimants, although the different language used by claimants in describing their injuries has led the courts in some cases to ...


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.