Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Joseph Cannon v. Mrs. Paul's Kitchens, No. A-68130.
David L. Pennington, with him Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd., for appellants.
Brenden E. Brett, with him Pratt, Clark, Gathright, and Price, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 499]
This is a direct administrative agency appeal by Underwriters Insurance Company and Mrs. Paul's Kitchens (Appellant) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, affirming the Referee's award of compensation to Joseph Cannon (Claimant) for total disability. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm.
The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on September 4, 1970 while Claimant was working on a ladder in appellant's processing plant in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. At that time, the ladder gave way, causing Claimant to fall some six feet to the concrete floor thereby striking the right side of his head and body.
This was not Claimant's first mishap on the job. On December 18, 1968, his right foot was injured when a fork lift ran over his foot causing him to fall back and strike his head. As a result of this accident, Claimant lost one month of work and received the appropriate workmen's compensation benefits. Then, on December 16, 1969, the injury to the right foot was aggravated by an accident when a valve slipped onto that foot. This accident was reported, but no work was lost and no compensation paid.
The sole issue which Appellant presents for our determination is whether the record in the instant case contains
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 500]
sufficient evidence to support a finding that Claimant's present condition is the result of the accident which occurred on September 4, 1970.*fn1
As we have said so often, "in a workmen's compensation case where the Board took no additional evidence and the party with the burden of proof [here the claimant] prevailed before the referee, our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or any necessary finding of fact found by the referee was unsupported by sufficient competent evidence." Williams v. San Giorgio Macaroni, Inc., 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 386 388, 319 A.2d 434, 435 (1974).
Was there sufficient competent evidence to support the referee's finding? The short of it is, yes. An illustrative summary of the ...