Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Osborne T. Young v. Vergie Beauty Products, No. A-68511.
Albert Ring, with him D'Agui & Del Collo, for appellant.
Stephen E. Levin, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him James N. Diefenderfer, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 516]
This is a direct administrative agency appeal by Osborne T. Young (Claimant) from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the Referee's disallowance of compensation on the basis that Claimant was not in the scope of his employment when he sustained the subject accident.
Claimant had two jobs, both apparently full time. He was employed by Vergie Beauty Products, Appellee in the present action (Vergie), and Celotex Corporation (Celotex). On July 6, 1968, Claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident when the van he was driving swerved from the road and struck a pole. Claimant
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 517]
sustained lacerations of the head, face, right arm and fractured toes and fingers.
In this appeal, it is not questioned that Claimant became totally disabled as a result of the July 6 accident. Claimant, however, raises two other issues for our determination:
1) Was it error to permit a referee who read the record but did not preside over the hearing and never observed the witnesses' demeanor, to enter findings of fact under our ordainment in Universal Cyclops ?
2) Was there a capricious disregard of evidence in finding Claimant to be outside the scope of his employment at the time of the accident?
Claimant and Appellee differ in delineating our scope of review. Since Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973), this Court has consistently spelled out our scope of review in workmen's compensation cases, and has enunciated the proposition that the scope of review is controlled by whether the decision has either gone against or in favor of the party with the burden of proof. In an effort to put it to rest, we say: If the party who has the burden of proof prevailed in the administrative process, review by this Court is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed or to make certain that necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, see Williams v. San Giorgio Macaroni Company, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 386, 319 A.2d 434 (1974); United States Steel Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 67, 308 A.2d 200 (1973); Kreider v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ...