Appeal in the case of Marian Bell v. City of Philadelphia and Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-72799.
Van P. Braswell, for petitioner.
Barry J. Grossman, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Sheldon L. Albert, City Solicitor and Tyler E. Wren, Deputy City Solicitor, for respondents.
Judges Mencer, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 157]
Marian Bell, claimant, petitions for review of the March 22, 1979 order of the Workmen's Compensation
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 158]
Appeal Board (board), which affirmed the referee's decision in favor of employer City of Philadelphia (city), terminating compensation then being paid to claimant for total disability.
This case has followed a tortuous path. Claimant tripped and fell while at work, once in January, 1974 and again in February, 1974; traumatic thrombophlebitis and consequent pulmonary emboli, resulting from the injuries sustained in those falls, required her to be hospitalized three times in 1974. Also as a result of the falls, claimant suffered from a fibrous myositus in the chest area, caused by aggravation of degenerative arthritis by the injuries and limited activity due to the phlebitic condition.
Claimant filed her petition for compensation on account of total disability, under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq., on June 19, 1974, after the second hospitalization; the third instance occurred in September of that year. The city did not answer the petition, nor did it file any denial or notice of compensation payable.
However, the city did pay claimant injured-on-duty (I.O.D.) wages through December 2, 1974.
On December 9, 1975, after several hearings, the referee awarded claimant benefits for total disability resulting from injuries sustained in the two work-related accidents. The referee based his decision on the city's omissions, noted above, and the city's admission of claimant's total disability from the compensable injuries, by the city's counsel on the record and by virtue of having paid wages in lieu of compensation up to December 2, 1974.
On the city's appeal, the board remanded the case to the referee for formulation of sufficient factual findings on the merits, citing Sherred v. Pittsburgh, 7 Pa. ...