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.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA AND EASTERN EXPRESS v. PEARL E. HOFFMAN (06/11/75)

decided: June 11, 1975.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND EASTERN EXPRESS, INC.
v.
PEARL E. HOFFMAN, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARVIN E. HOFFMAN, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Marvin E. Hoffman by Pearl E. Hoffman, Executrix, v. Eastern Express, Inc., No. A-68427.

COUNSEL

Richard E. Myers, with him Bertani, Myers & Makoski, for appellant.

Theodore E. Breault, with him Egler and Reinstadtler, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 611]

Pearl E. Hoffman, as executrix of the estate of Marvin E. Hoffman, deceased,*fn1 has appealed from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board sustaining a referee's decision to grant Eastern Express, Inc.'s (Eastern) petition to terminate compensation payable to its employee Marvin E. Hoffman.

Mr. Hoffman fell and suffered head, neck and spinal injuries while at work for Eastern on April 29, 1973. During the course of hospital treatment he was examined by Dr. S. A. Tukanowicz, a neurosurgeon, who ordered diagnostic tests which revealed the presence of a malignant brain tumor.

Between May 7, 1973 and May 21, 1973, Mr. Hoffman received two weekly checks of $100 each as disability compensation from Eastern, a self-insurer. It is not clear whether these payments were made pursuant to a compensation agreement or a notice of compensation payable. See The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, § 407, as amended, 77 P.S. § 731 (Supp. 1974-1975). In either case, apparently without compliance with Section 408, as amended, 77 P.S. § 732 (Supp. 1974-1975) or Section 434, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1001 (Supp. 1974-1975), Eastern then stopped payments. In September 1973, Eastern filed a petition to terminate compensation alleging that Hoffman was no longer disabled due to injuries suffered in its employ. At the referee's hearing held March 28, 1974, the only evidence produced by the employer was the testimony of Dr. Tukanowicz. The referee found that Hoffman's disability relating to the accident ceased as of March 28, 1974, and that his disability after that date was the result of the natural progression of the brain tumor. He ordered compensation

[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 612]

    payments only for the period until March 28, 1974, granted the petition to terminate as of that date and assessed Eastern with interest and penalty*fn2 charges. The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the referee's award and the executrix has appealed.

The employer petitioning to terminate payments under a compensation agreement or a notice of compensation payable bears the burden of proving that the disability has temporarily or finally ceased or that the disability presently suffered by the claimant is no longer causally related to claimant's accident. Section 413 of the Act, as amended, 77 P.S. § 772 (Supp. 1974-1975); Tioga Textiles Association, Inc v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 492, 319 A.2d 211 (1974). The sole issue raised by appellant is that of whether Dr. Tukanowicz's testimony was sufficient to carry Eastern's burden.

The executrix advances two arguments. First, she contends that Dr. Tukanowicz's testimony that Hoffman's continued disability resulted from the brain tumor and not the accident-related injuries does not meet the "clear and unequivocal" standard the law requires of medical testimony as to causation. See, e.g., Calcite Quarry Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 322 A.2d 403 (1974). Having carefully reviewed Dr. Tukanowicz's testimony in its entirety, we disagree. The doctor testified that there was no direct evidence that the head injury caused the development of the tumor. It was his opinion that, although the blow to the head had aggravated the tumor, the tumor was of a "progressive nature" and that its symptom would have rendered ...


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.