Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of George H. Miller v. Edgewater Steel Company, No. A-69128.
Thomas J. Ferris, with him Clem R. Kyle, for appellants.
Thomas P. Geer, with him James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
This is an appeal by Edgewater Steel Company, employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurance carrier, (Appellants) from an opinion and order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the referee's award of workmen's compensation benefits to George H. Miller (Claimant). We affirm.
Claimant was an employee of the Edgewater Steel Company from October 1940 to May 1971. For a majority of those years, he had been classified as a Class "A" Machinist. His work required repeated lifting of metal rings which weighed between forty (40) and sixty (60) pounds from the floor behind where he was standing and placing them on the lathe in front of him. On May 10, 1971, Claimant experienced pain in his lower back while
performing his ordinary and regular work in his usual manner.*fn1 The referee in awarding compensation found, inter alia, that Claimant was injured in the course of his employment, the injury was properly reported, and he is totally disabled as a result of his accidental injury.
The question presented is: Was there sufficient competent evidence to establish notice to the employer, the occurrence of an accident, the injury and resulting disability?
Where, as here, the Claimant having the burden of proof "prevailed before the referee and the Board did not receive additional evidence . . . our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not any constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or any necessary findings of fact, as found by the referee, were unsupported by substantial evidence. See Reed v. Glidden Company, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 343, 318 A.2d 376 (1974). If the findings of the referee are supported by sufficient competent evidence, and the Board did not take additional testimony, then those findings are binding on the Board and on this Court. See Universal Cyclops Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973)." Lisi v Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 294, 296, 331 A.2d 252, 254 (1975).
Appellant raises three contentions. First, Claimant failed to give his employer proper and timely notice of the injury as required by the Statute.*fn2 The referee found and the record supported his findings that Claimant notified his foreman immediately after the ...