Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Augustus Scott v. Acme Wire Products, Inc., No. 1557 October Term, 1968.
Jay Meyers, for appellant.
John G. Jenemann, with him Joseph R. Thompson, for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 547]
This is an appeal by Augustus Scott (Scott) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming an order of the Workmen's Compensation
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 548]
Appeal Board (Board) which reversed a referee's award of compensation benefits.
Scott had been employed by Acme Wire Products, Inc. (Acme) as a rib bender for about 20 years. On March 7, 1967, while at work, he was attacked and seriously injured by a fellow employee, one Percy Hall (Hall). Scott was awarded compensation benefits after a hearing was held before a referee. Acme appealed this award to the Board which, without taking additional evidence, reversed the referee. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County then affirmed the Board and Scott filed this appeal.
The only issue presented throughout this litigation and again in this appeal is whether or not Scott's injuries are in a class of injuries which was specifically made non-compensable by Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1 This section provided, inter alia : "The term 'injury by an accident in the course of his employment,' as used in this article, shall not include an injury caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the employe because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employe or because of his employment. . . ." Both the Board and the court below denied benefits on the ground that Scott did not suffer an "injury by an accident in the course of his employment" because the attack upon Scott was inflicted because of reasons personal to his assailant, Hall, and not because of his employment.
Our scope of review in workmen's compensation cases is limited to a determination as to whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed, or any necessary finding of fact was not supported
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 549]
by substantial 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 decided an issue prior to May 1, 1972 in favor of the party having the burden of proof,*fn2 our review is limited to a determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board, giving to the victorious party the benefit of the most favorable ...