Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MAUCHLY ASSOCIATES AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND ELAINE SCHOOR (09/26/74)

decided: September 26, 1974.

MAUCHLY ASSOCIATES AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND ELAINE SCHOOR, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Elaine Schoor v. Mauchly Associates, No. A-67614.

COUNSEL

Charles S. Katz, Jr., with him Richard D. Harburg and Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, for appellants.

Marvin F. Galfand, with him Myrna W. Galfand, James N. Diefenderfer and Dragon, Verlin & Galfand, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 297]

This is an appeal by Mauchly Associates and its insurance carrier, the Zurich Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Appellants) from the affirmance by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) of a referee's award of workmen's compensation benefits to Elaine Schoor.

The referee's award of benefits was based on his findings of fact to the effect that Mrs. Schoor had become totally disabled as a result of an accident which occurred during the course of her employment with Mauchly Associates.

Before considering the questions presented by this appeal, we must state our limited scope of review. In workmen's compensation cases in which the claimant has prevailed below, our review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated,

[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 298]

    an error of law was committed, or any necessary finding of fact was not supported by substantial evidence. Regent Bottling Company v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 8, 309 A.2d 265 (1973). As will be seen, this narrow scope of review controls the outcome of this appeal.

Appellants' first contention is that the referee's findings to the effect that Mrs. Schoor suffered a compensable accident which was causally connected to her injury are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We do not agree.

The relevant findings of the referee on these points are as follows:

"1. Claimant, 42 years of age, on 4.14.69 was employed by defendant at an average weekly wage of $125. On 4.14.69 the mail boy was assigned another duty prior to picking up the mail. Consistent with her duties, claimant drove in a car owned by the company to Montgomeryville Post Office to pick up the mail. The mail consisted of two cartons containing magazines, letters, proposals, tapes and movies. One was two and a half by three feet deep and about two feet wide. The other was two by two feet square. The larger carton weighed approximately 50 pounds and the smaller one weighed about 35 pounds. Claimant placed the smaller carton on the floor in the front of the car without incident. However, while claimant was setting the larger carton on the front seat of the car the wind blew the door, which struck claimant in the back. She ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.