Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOHN PAPERNIK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/18/79)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: April 18, 1979.

JOHN PAPERNIK, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS

Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of John Papernik v. United States Steel Corporation, No. A-72617.

COUNSEL

Benjamin L. Costello, with him Kenneth J. Yablonski, for petitioner.

R. M. Guttshall, III, for respondents.

Judges Mencer, DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 82]

In Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Republic Steel Corp., 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 301, 375 A.2d 1369 (1977), we held that stenographic costs incurred for the reproduction of the deposition of the claimant's medical witness, which was presented into evidence before the referee, was a cost of litigation which could be assessed against the employer in favor of the prevailing claimant as a ". . . reasonable sum for costs incurred for . . . witnesses," under Section 440 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act).*fn1

This appeal presents the question whether, on the facts of this case, the costs incurred for the reproduction

[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 83]

    of the deposition of the employer's medical witness, for the use of the claimant's attorney in assessing the employer's position and checking for inaccuracies in the deposition, is also a cost of litigation, reimbursable to the successful claimant under Section 440 of the Act.*fn2

It is a fundamental principle that the Act, being remedial in nature, receives a liberal construction and every reasonable intendment of the language of the Act should be upheld in favor of the employee. Sims v. American Can Co., 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 423, 296 A.2d 290 (1972).

The purpose of Section 440 is to deter unreasonable contests by employers and to insure that a successful claimant receives compensation undiminished by necessary costs of litigation. See Harmar Coal Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 110, 381 A.2d 219 (1977); J.R. Sales, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 115, 381 A.2d 212 (1977); Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corporation, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 517, 353 A.2d 79 (1977).

In a proper situation, Section 440 could be the basis for reimbursement for the stenographic cost of a copy of the deposition of a defendant's medical witness. The reference to expenses for "witnesses" in that section is not confined to those witnesses produced by the claimant.

Here the claimant argues that a copy of the deposition of defendant's medical witness was essential

[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 84]

    to the prosecution of claimant's case. However, the Board did not agree.

The Board reviewed the litigation history of this case and found that the deposition copy was not reasonably essential.*fn3 We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the Board on that question of reasonableness. We therefore affirm the Board.

Order

And Now, this 18th day of April, 1979, the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board at Docket No. A-72617 is affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.