Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Margaret Dantone v. Rosenau Brothers, Incorporated, No. A-66066.
Bart E. Ecker, with him Laputka, Bayless, Ecker & Cohn, P.C., for appellant.
Ettore S. Agolino, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 463]
Margaret Dantone was a salaried employee with Rosenau Brothers, Incorporated (Rosenau) in the capacity of supervisor in the sewing department. Her duties consisted of teaching and supervising twenty to twenty-five sewing machine operators and supplying them with material with which to work. This latter task consisted of taking material from a storage room, where it was stored in containers know as tote boxes, and transporting it to her department, from which area it was distributed to the sewing machine operators.
On January 31, 1968, Mrs. Dantone was instructed by her supervisor to move two or three lots of a heavy material from her department to the shipping department. While moving this material from racks, approximately five feet high, Mrs. Dantone felt an extremely sharp pain above her waistline. She then ceased her work for the day and went home. Within a day of this event, Mrs. Dantone received medical attention from her physician. She never went back to work.
Mrs. Dantone filed a claim petition pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Compensation benefits were granted following a hearing before a referee. Rosenau then appealed to the Workmen's Compensation
[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 464]
Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the findings, conclusions and award of the referee. Rosenau now appeals to this court.
The sole issue presented here is whether or not the Board erred in finding as a conclusion of law that Mrs. Dantone was totally disabled. Before deciding this issue, we must note our limited scope of review in this type of case.
When a claimant has been awarded compensation, our scope of review is limited to a determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Board. It is for the fact finder to determine questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence. The party prevailing below is to be given the benefit of the most favorable inference deducible from the evidence. See Duquesne Brewing Company v. Dyda, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 531, 303 A.2d 541 (1973).
Rosenau argues that the Board, in finding that Mrs. Dantone was totally disabled, disregarded substantial and competent evidence to the contrary. However, as we pointed out above, we must affirm the Board's finding if it is supported by ...