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.

SHOEMAKER v. BUDD COMPANY. (09/16/60)

September 16, 1960

SHOEMAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
BUDD COMPANY.



Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1959, No. 556, in case of Catherine Shoemaker v. The Budd Company.Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

James Francis Lawler, for appellant.

Alexander F. Barbieri, for appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 96]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of the County of Philadelphia, entered in favor of the Budd Company, the appellee-defendant, and against the claimant-appellant, Catherine Shoemaker, affirming the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Referee and the Workmen's Compensation Board terminating a compensation agreement.

The claimant was first employed by the Budd Company in 1932. On February 7, 1955 she was stacking pieces of steel when she claimed to have sprained the muscles in her back. An open agreement was executed by the claimant and her employer providing compensation for total disability at the rate of $32.50. The employer filed a petition to terminate the agreement on the ground that the disability caused by the accident ceased on February 21, 1955.The referee found that "claimant became totally disabled on February 8, 1955, and remained so until February 23, 1955", and that any present disability "is caused by congenital conditions and degeneration of muscles and spinal processes due to their original malformations, and not to the injury sustained." The Workmen's Compensation Board in affirming the referee adopted these findings.

As this is a petition for the termination of a compensation agreement, the burden of proof is on the petitioning employer to prove that a disability, that admittedly existed as a result of an accident, had ceased. The referee and the board so found and as the findings are supported by sufficient legally competent evidence this Court will not disturb them. Erwin v. L. & H. Construction Co., 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 632, 161 A.2d 639 (1960); Kubler v. Yeager, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 150 A.2d 383 (1959).

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 97]

The record discloses a conflict of medical testimony but Dr. Micek, a witness called by the employer, testified that in his opinion she was able to return to work without any residual disability that could be attributed to the occurrence on February 7, 1955. The credibility of expert witnesses and the weight to be attached to their testimony are matters exclusively for the board. Gasior v. Pittsburgh, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 371, 146 A.2d 320 (1958).

The appellant further contends that the court below abused its discretion in not remanding the case for a new hearing, when the referee who heard the testimony resigned his office before legally recording his decision. The record discloses that Referee Charles J. Tetlow heard the case on October 8, 1957; that his decision dated April 3, 1958, was filed on June 19, 1958; and that Tetlow resigned on April 4, 1958.The board disposed of this contention by holding: "The second question gives this Board no difficulty whatsoever because of the known fact that a referee is but an agent of the Board whose decision may be accepted or rejected. To pinpoint the particular question involved, however, this Board points out that the referee's decision was dated at the referee's office as being printed for distribution on April 3, 1958.Why it didn't arrive at the office of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation until June 19, 1958, and immediately thereafter released, is of little importance. The referee was in office on April 3, 1958. Taking the statement that the referee resigned his office on April 4, 1958, as a fact, we would still have to rule that the referee had not resigned his office prior to the issuance of the decision.

"This Board, however, wishes to reiterate that the referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of award are not ...


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.