Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Ronald Schaak v. R.M. Kerner Company, No. 67525.
Howard N. Plate, with him Plate, Doyle, Kroto and Hutzelman, for appellants.
James P. Lay, III, with him Gifford and Lay, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 283]
The narrow issue in this workmen's compensation case is the propriety of the reversal of a referee's finding by the Workmen's Compensation Board (Board) and the substitution of its own findings in reaching a conclusion that Ronald Schaack (claimant) was entitled to compensation benefits.
Claimant was employed as a saw operator by the R.M. Kerner Company when, on September 17, 1971, he injured his back while manipulating a heavy piece of steel into position on his work table.
Claimant was denied compensation as a result of the following findings of fact of the referee:
"SEVEN: The claimant did not slip, twist or fall on September 17, 1971.
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 284]
"EIGHT: On September 17, 1971, the claimant was doing his usual work in the usual manner and the said work did not require a greater amount of exertion, risk or exposure than that to which the claimant was ordinarily subjected."
Claimant appealed to the Board, which, on December 18, 1973, without taking additional evidence, reversed the order of the referee denying compensation. In so doing, the Board set aside the referee's finding number eight and substituted the following findings:*fn1
"EIGHTH: On September 17, 1971, the Claimant was engaged in a work of a different nature which required a materially greater amount of exertion, risk or hazard than that to which he ...