Appeal, No. 255, Oct. T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1959, No. 497, in case of L. A. Moore v. MacArthur Pile Corporation et al. Judgment affirmed.
Maurice Freedman, with him Robert H. Arronson, and Herbert H. Hadra, for appellant.
Joseph R. Thompson, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ. (wright, J., absent).
[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 513]
In this workmen's compensation case, the claimant has filed this appeal from the judgment of the court below affirming the decision of the Board terminating compensation benefits.
On January 26, 1954, claimant, L. A. Moore, suffered injuries to his back while in the course of his employment by MacArthur Pile Corporation. While straining to move a six ton rig, he slipped and fell on ice and snow and struck his back against a steel beam. He was hospitalized as a result of this accident until February 15, 1954. The insurance carrier tendered an agreement for compensation from the date of the accident to February 16, 1954, which was refused. On February 26, 1954, the claimant filed his petition for compensation. At the hearings before the referee, records of Temple University Hospital were introduced and medical testimony was received into evidence from
[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 514]
both sides. Following the hearings, on March 23, 1956, the referee found the claimant to be totally disabled and that his disability still continued. On October 3, 1956, the Board reversed the decision of the referee and remanded the case to him for the appointment of an impartial physician. Thereafter, a hearing was held on January 15, 1957, at which time Dr. Morris Segal, the impartial physician, testified. Dr. Emanuel Ferguson testified for claimant. The referee filed his decision on April 14, 1957, finding total disability from the date of the accident to July 1, 1954 and that disability ceased on that date. Claimant filed an appeal to the Board and the Board, on July 17, 1957, filed an opinion affirming the referee's decision. From this determination, claimant filed an appeal in the court below but before arguments were heard on this appeal, claimant filed a petition for a rehearing before the Board. This petition alleged that since the filing of the appeal, claimant had undergone further medical tests and treatment and that he has been further hospitalized and treated.
By stipulation, argument on the appeal filed in the court below was postponed pending determination of the petition to the Board for a rehearing. On May 7, 1958, the Board granted a rehearing at which additional medical evidence was taken. The records of the Veterans Administration Hospital, Perry Point, Maryland, was introduced and three other doctors testified for claimant. On May 26, 1959, the referee again filed an opinion holding that claimant's disability had ceased as of July 1, 1954. From this decision, an appeal was filed with the Board and on December 2, 1959, the Board again affirmed the referee's decision. The claimant also took an appeal from this decision and, after argument, the court below affirmed the decision of the Board. This appeal followed.
[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 515]
Claimant contends here that the Board capriciously disregarded the testimony of his doctors and hospital records and that upon granting a rehearing, at which additional evidence was produced to show that he was totally and permanently disabled, it disregarded this evidence. Without detailing the medical evidence produced, it is sufficient to state that the claimant and his medical experts contended that he was continuously disabled by a herniated disc injury which was caused by the accident of January 26, 1954. On the other hand, the employer's medical evidence tended to show that claimant was no longer disabled. The impartial medical expert stated that there was no clinical evidence of a fracture or dislocation of the bones comprising the sacroilliac joints or lumbar vertebrae. There was no evidence of a ruptured disc and that x-ray studies and a myelogram sustained this conclusion. Claimant's medical experts, on the ...