Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1966, No. 3373, in case of Daniel Williams v. Aaron Richman & Sons et al.
Milton S. Lazaroff, for appellant.
Joseph A. Purul, Jr., Associate Counsel, with him Thomas E. Roberts, Chief Counsel, Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for State Workmen's Insurance Fund, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Hannum, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.
[ 212 Pa. Super. Page 291]
Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
This case arises out of a claim for benefits filed under The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act for disability resulting from lead poisoning.
Hearings in this matter were first held on July 14 and September 8, 1965 before the referee who denied the claim. At that hearing, Dr. George Ehrlich testified on behalf of claimant and a Dr. Brieger testified on behalf of the company.
The referee accepted the testimony of Dr. Brieger and dismissed the claim. On appeal, the Workmen's Compensation Board held that the referee erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Brieger who had never examined claimant. Nonetheless, the Board affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the testimony of Dr. Ehrlich was somewhat equivocal. The Board also mentions as secondary reasons that (a) the hospital records at the time of claimant's discharge made no mention of lead poisoning; (b) Dr. Ehrlich was not claimant's treating physician; and (c) Dr. Ehrlich never examined claimant for blood poisoning.
The lower court, in affirming the Board, held that its findings were consistent and could be sustained without a capricious ...