Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Richard T. Doolin v. Allied Chemical Corporation, No. A-67873.
Joseph J. Murphy, with him, of counsel, Murphy, Murphy & Murphy, for appellants.
Vincent B. Corsetti, with him Bank, Minehart & D'Angelo, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 278]
This is an appeal from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated April 4, 1974, which affirmed a referee's award of compensation to Richard T. Doolin (Doolin).
On May 2, 1968, Doolin was employed as a laborer by the Allied Chemical Corporation (Allied). On that date a fire broke out at Allied's plant, and, while fleeing for safety, Doolin allegedly slipped and fell, injuiring his back. After receiving medical attention, Doolin returned to work at Allied, but, on May 23, 1968, his back was allegedly injured again while he was pulling a piece of conduit. Subsequent to this second injury, Doolin twice required hospitalization and extended medical care. The referee specifically found that two compensable "accidents" had occurred on the aforementioned dates, and an award for temporary disability and medical costs was entered.
Our scope of review in cases where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed below is to determine whether any necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether any errors of law have been committed, and whether constitutional rights have been violated. David v. Bellevue Locust Garage, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 602, 604, 317 A.2d 341, 342 (1974).
Allied and its insurance carrier raise two issues, and we may quickly dispose of one of them. It is suggested that error was committed by virtue of the fact that several
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 279]
referees heard testimony in this case, while the adjudication was rendered by only one referee, who, necessarily, did not personally hear all of the evidence. No objection to this procedure was made below, nor was it specifically excepted to by Allied. In such circumstances, as we have said before, the question has not been properly presented to this Court, and, accordingly, we will not discuss it further. See Muser v. I.B.M. Corporation, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12, 14, 317 A.2d 352 (1974) and United States Steel Corporation v. Simon, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 281, 287, 305 A.2d 913, 917 (1973).
Allied also questions whether there is "sufficient competent evidence of record upon which the award can be based" and/or whether there has been "a capricious disregard of the competent evidence."*fn1 It should be pointed out that Allied offered no evidence by way of defense to Doolin's claim, and the only testimony was given by Doolin himself, an eyewitness to the first accident, and Doolin's doctor.
Specifically, Allied questions the sufficiency of Doolin's medical evidence, and its relationship to proof of the accident itself. As is common in any case involving personal injury, the testimony of a doctor was required to establish the causal relationship, and the expert's ultimate conclusion was based upon a hypothetical question which assumed certain facts related to the incident which allegedly caused the injury. As noted above, Doolin's doctor was the only medical witness, and there can be no question regarding the unequivocal nature of his conclusion. Dr. Lodise said, in response to questioning by Doolin's ...