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.

SOPHIA A. KANIA v. EBENSBURG STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL (01/30/80)

decided: January 30, 1980.

SOPHIA A. KANIA, PETITIONER
v.
EBENSBURG STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in case of Sophia A. Kania, dated September 13, 1978.

COUNSEL

Submitted on briefs:

Timothy P. Creany, for petitioner.

James S. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.

Author: Crumlish

[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 137]

Sophia A. Kania appeals a decision of the Department of Public Welfare denying her benefits in the nature of workmen's compensation for her failure to prove the causal relationship of her disability to a work incident.*fn1 After consideration of her appeal, we affirm.

Kania, a Vocational Adjustment Aide II at Ebensburg Center, was assaulted by a resident. Following one month of recuperation, she returned to full time. One year later she contracted pneumonia and suffered a kidney disorder whereupon she left her job. She then sought benefits claiming recurrence of the original disability of January 17, 1975.

[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 138]

By analogy to our scope of review in workmen's compensation cases, the narrow issue is whether the Department capriciously disregarded competent evidence as to causation. Lewis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 70, 401 A.2d 863 (1979). A capricious disregard amounts to a willful or deliberate ignoring of evidence which a reasonable person would consider important. DiCamillo v. City of Philadelphia, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 402, 328 A.2d 223 (1974).

Kania contends that her claim has been substantiated by unequivocal medical testimony. The hearing examiner, whose exclusive function it is to determine questions of evidentiary weight and matters of credibility, concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the alleged causal connection.

Dr. Silenskey, in a letter to claimant submitted for support, stated:

It is my opinion that although the arthritis was present on the examination of February 5, 1975, that the pre-existing condition was aggravated by the ...


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.