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.

TOWNSEND & BOTTUM v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/11/80)

decided: April 11, 1980.

TOWNSEND & BOTTUM, INC. AND MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., PETITIONERS
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND CLIFFORD C. WAY, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Clifford C. Way v. Townsend & Bottum, Inc., No. A-76557.

COUNSEL

Francis E. Pipak, Jr., with him Fred C. Trenor, II, of Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, for appellants.

Alan E. Johnson, with him Paul R. Van Such, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 461]

Townsend & Bottum, Inc., and its insurer Michigan Mutual Insurance Company (petitioners) appeal from the decision and order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (board) remanding the claim of Clifford C. Way (claimant) to the referee for determination of the extent of claimant's disability, if any.

Although claimant has not filed an application to quash the appeal, all parties argue the issue of the reviewability of the interlocutory remand order; hence we will treat the case as if such an application were before us. See Rockwood Area School District v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 250, 381 A.2d 230 (1978).

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 462]

The referee found that claimant had sustained a compensable injury in the course of employment but also noting that he could not "render a reasonable finding in reference to the question of disability," he dismissed the claim petition without prejudice to the claimant's right to refile "when and if he secures evidence or testimony to support specific periods of disability" resulting from the injury. In the discussion accompanying his findings, the referee specifically requested the board to deny any request for a remand unless claimant or his counsel would present to the board a record of claimant's employment and earnings during the post-injury period.

On claimant's appeal to the board, he did provide evidence as to his employment history after the injury. The board stated that there was no doubt as to the occurrence of the injury, and remanded the record, accompanied by the evidence, for the referee's clarification.

Although the board's authority to remand is limited, our review of remand orders is even more limited. The general rule in this context is that the board's remand orders are interlocutory and unappealable. The rule, and the limited instances of divergence from it, were summarized in American Can Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 169, 389 A.2d 263 (1978):

In most instances, an order of the Board remanding a case to a referee is interlocutory and an appeal to this Court from such an order will be quashed. Gilroy v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 152, 377 A.2d 1302 (1977). There are, however, several exceptions to this general rule. An appeal will ...


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.