Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of James I. Morton v. Hays Ordnance.
Thomas P. Geer, for appellant.
Leonard P. Kane, Jr., with him Brandt, McManus, Brandt and Malone, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 578]
This is an appeal by James I. Morton from an adjudication of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed a referee's decision denying Morton's petition
[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 579]
for modification. The issue in this case is whether the referee capriciously disregarded competent evidence. We conclude that he did not and affirm.
Morton was employed by Hays Ordnance (Hays) when he severely injured his left leg in a work-related accident on August 15, 1967. Morton and Hays executed a compensation agreement for total disability and compensation under that agreement continued until October 29, 1970, except for a few days when Morton returned to work. On October 29, 1970, Morton and Hays executed a Supplemental Agreement which provided that Morton's disability resolved itself on February 7, 1968, into the industrial loss of use of the leg. The Supplemental Agreement provided for compensation at the rate of $52.50 per week for 215 weeks beginning February 7, 1968, with Hays being given credit for compensation already paid. Morton has been paid in full in accordance with the provisions of the Supplemental Agreement.
On February 24, 1972, Morton filed the Petition for Modification which is the subject of the instant case. The Petition alleged that Morton is totally disabled because of injuries to his back and leg resulting from the 1967 accident. Hearings were held before a referee, and on August 6, 1974, the referee issued his adjudication holding that Morton is not entitled to a modification of his prior agreement. The referee found (1) that Morton failed to prove by sufficient competent evidence that he suffers any disability resulting from his accident other than the injury to his leg; (2) that Morton has been fully compensated for the loss of use of his leg; and (3) that any disability of Morton's back is not causally related to the 1967 accident or to the injuries received in that accident. Morton appealed to the Board, which affirmed the referee.
In his appeal to this Court Morton argues (1) that the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not sufficient to resolve the issues of fact and law involved
[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 580]
in this case; (2) that there is not sufficient competent medical evidence to support the referee's decision; (3) that the case should be remanded for an impartial medical examination; or (4) that compensation should be awarded for the period from the end of the specific ...