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.

D.L. CLARK COMPANY v. DOROTHY L. MCCOY (07/03/80)

decided: July 3, 1980.

D.L. CLARK COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
DOROTHY L. MCCOY, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Dorothy L. McCoy v. D. L. Clark Company, No. A-76023.

COUNSEL

Daniel F. Cusick, with him George M. Evan, Stein & Winters, for petitioner.

Michael B. Kaleugher, Rosenberg, Kirshner & Kaleugher, P.A., for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 491]

The D.L. Clark Company (employer) appeals here from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's award of compensation to Dorothy L. McCoy (claimant).

Claimant suffered a work-related injury to her back on January 15, 1971. She filed a compensation claim for total disability which was granted by a referee and upheld by the Board. The employer then appealed here and we noted that, because the injury occurred prior to the 1972 amendments to The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act),*fn1 it was

[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 492]

    necessary for the claimant to prove that she had suffered an "accident" within the meaning of the Act. We concluded, moreover, that the referee had not made adequate findings to support an award under either the "unusual pathological result doctrine" or the "unusual strain doctrine," and we therefore remanded. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. D.L. Clark Co., 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 657, 358 A.2d 112 (1976). The referee, in view of our remand, then issued a new decision which contained the following pertinent findings:

Seven: On January 15, 1971, while in the course of her employment with Defendant, this Claimant sustained an accidental injury which has rendered the Claimant totally disabled.

Eight: On January 15, 1971, the Claimant was performing a different job than her usual job. The job that the Claimant was performing required her to work on an automated conveyor type machine. While the Claimant was in the process of supplying boxes to perform her function, and because of an inadequate supply of boxes, it was necessary that she proceed under the conveyor belt and while in the unusual position and while hurrying, and while pushing, pulling and tugging on a box without a good grip on same, and while in close quarters, struggling, the Claimant sustained an accidental injury to her back.

Nine: The accidental injury to her back was directly related to the episode of January 15, 1971 and directly ...


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.