Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Gordon J. Isherwood v. Township of Penn Hills, No. A-66048.
William A. Weiler, with him Glasso and Weiler, for appellant.
Carl B. Fried, with him Irwin M. Ringold, for appellees.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 188]
This is an appeal by Gordon J. Isherwood (Isherwood) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) denying him benefits.
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 189]
Isherwood was employed by the Township of Penn Hills (Township) as a police officer. On February 3, 1970, he filed a claim petition with the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, alleging that he injured his back on March 4, 1969 as a result of an accident in which he slipped on a step while carrying a stretcher during the course of his employment.
After two hearings were held, a referee denied compensation on the basis of his finding that Isherwood did not sustain a compensable accidental injury on March 4, 1969. The Board then affirmed the referee's determination. The present appeal follows the Board's denial of Isherwood's petition for a rehearing.
Our scope of review in workmen's compensation cases is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or any necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial competent evidence. Page's Department Store v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 126, 309 A.2d 169 (1973). And where, as here, the Board has affirmed the findings and conclusions of the referee and has found against the party having the burden of proof,*fn1 review by this Court is to determine whether the findings are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and the Board's order and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Wilkes-Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 612, 309 A.2d 172 (1973).
The first two questions presented in this appeal concern the propriety of the ...