Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Thomas Cerny v. Schrader & Seyfried, No. A-64448.
Robert Lazorchick, with him Scott & Lazorchick, for appellants.
Carl A. Niehoff, with him James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 353]
In Cerny v. Schrader & Seyfried, Inc., 463 Pa. 20, 342 A.2d 384 (1975), the Supreme Court vacated an
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 354]
order of this Court dismissing the workmen's compensation claimant, Cerny's, petition for modification of an award, concluding its opinion as follows:
Therefore, we vacate the Order of the Commonwealth Court and remand the record to the Workmen's Compensation Board so that it may decide whether an increase in Cerny's disability has been established. If the Board determines that Cerny has met his burden of proving his disability increased after September 21, 1962, then, since Schrader has failed to establish work other than his own type of employment was available to Cerny, an award for total disability should be entered. If, however, the Board determines that an increase in disability has not been proven, then a judgment for Schrader should follow.
463 Pa. at 25 342 A.2d at 387.
When the matter was accordingly remanded, the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board assigned it to the same referee who had previously acted in the case for his determination of "whether claimant experienced an increase in disability and whether he is incapable of performing his regular employment." The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in subsequent orders explained its action in sending the matter to a referee as being, in its view, necessary under the rule of Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973), approved by the Supreme Court in Page's Department Store v. ...