Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of William Warden v. Green Manufacturing Company, No. A-66817.
Stanley C. Berlin, with him John M. McLaughlin and Knox, Graham, Pearson, McLaughlin & Sennett, Inc., for appellant.
Howard N. Plate, with him Plate, Doyle, Kroto and Hutzelman, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 148]
On October 4, 1961, while in the course of his employment with the Green Manufacturing Company (Green), William Warden (Warden) suffered serious injuries as a result of an accident in which a packing crate of glass weighing 13,000 pounds fell from a truck, crushing the lower half of his body against the side of the vehicle.
On October 17, 1961, Warden and Green entered into a compensation agreement providing for total disability at $30.37 per week. This agreement remained in effect until the parties entered into a supplemental compensation agreement, dated June 13, 1963, providing for partial disability of 40%.*fn1
On May 14, 1965, Green filed a petition for modification of the supplemental agreement, alleging that Warden was no longer 40% disabled. Warden filed an answer claiming that he had been totally disabled since the date of the accident. The petition and answer went before a referee but, after a discussion between the parties, Green withdrew its petition for modification. Warden then continued to receive compensation for partial disability until July 3, 1969, at which time he filed a petition for modification of the supplemental agreement dated June 13, 1963.
This petition came before a referee who granted the petition and awarded Warden benefits for total disability as of August 7, 1970. Green appealed this award to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board)
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 149]
which reversed the determination of the referee on November 8, 1973 and dismissed Warden's petition. Warden then brought this appeal.
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 taken no additional evidence and has decided a case after May 1, 1972,*fn2 we must rely on the facts as found by the referee if ...