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 MARY SEBASTIANI v. ALFRED J. LEVY (03/11/76)

decided: March 11, 1976.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND MARY SEBASTIANI
v.
ALFRED J. LEVY, T/A LILY SHOP, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Mary Sebastiani v. Alfred J. Levy, t/a Lily Shop, No. A-68676.

COUNSEL

Raymond F. Keisling, with him Will & Keisling, for appellants.

Peter F. Troglio, with him James N. Diefenderfer, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Blatt. President Judge Bowman and Judge Mencer dissent.

Author: Blatt

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 659]

This is an appeal by Alfred J. Levy, trading as the Lily Shop, and the Home Insurance Company (appellants) from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a referee's grant of benefits to the claimant, Mary Sebastiani.

The facts of this case are not in dispute and are that the claimant was on her way to work at the Lily Shop on January 3, 1974 when she slipped and fell on the icy sidewalk and struck her head on the employer's building.

The sole question presented upon appeal is whether or not the claimant was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident. If she was, she is entitled to benefits.

In workmen's compensation cases, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or a necessary finding of fact was not supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the Board did not take additional evidence. The facts, therefore, as found by the referee, and if based upon competent and sufficient evidence, are binding upon both the Board and this Court. Dunlap v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 19, 330 A.2d 555 (1975); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973).

The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act)*fn1 provides benefits to individuals sustaining injuries

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 660]

    in the course of their employment, and Section 301(c) of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง 411(1), defines "injuries arising in the course of employment" as

"injuries sustained while the employe is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether upon the employer's premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employe who, though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer's business or ...


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.