Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Adolph Pizzo v. S.K.F. Industries.
Marc S. Jacobs, with him Roland J. Artigues, and, of counsel, Galfand, Berger, Senesky, Lurie and March, for appellant.
Barbara Pennell, with her Joseph R. Thompson and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Kramer and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 371]
This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial, in part, of a modification petition filed by Adolph Pizzo (claimant). The referee dismissed that portion of the petition asking for compensation for serious and permanent facial disfigurement.
On July 13, 1971, while in the course of his employment, Adolph Pizzo was injured when a metallic fragment struck his right eye. Claimant and his employer entered into an agreement for compensation on October 5, 1971, under which claimant was paid compensation from July 14, 1971 until January 14, 1972, at which time he returned to work. A final receipt was signed on January 18, 1972.
The claimant filed a petition for modification on August 30, 1973, alleging that the injury of July 13, 1971, had resolved itself into the loss of use of the right eye, as well as serious and permanent facial disfigurement resulting from claimant's inability to keep his eye open. The referee awarded additional compensation for the loss of use claim, but denied the claim for disfigurement on the grounds that there was "no competent medical evidence to show that the closing of the right eyelid
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 372]
and the squinting are permanent." Claimant appealed this second determination to the Board which dismissed the appeal. We affirm.
Our scope of review in examining decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, where the Board has affirmed the decision of the referee, is limited to whether the referee's findings, as affirmed by the Board, are consistent with each other and with his conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Isherwood v. Township of Penn Hills, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 187, 318 A.2d 767 (1974); Canterna v. United States Steel Corporation, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 579, 317 A.2d 355 (1974).
The applicable law is Section 306(c) (22) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 513(22), which states in pertinent part:
"For all disability resulting from permanent injuries of the following classes, the compensation shall ...