Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Philip L. Stegner v. Canterbury Coal Company, No. A-74953.
Benjamin Costello, with him J. Scott Leckie and Kenneth J. Yablonski, for petitioner.
Paul E. Sutter, with him George H. Thompson, Hirsch, Weise & Tillman, for respondents, Canterbury Coal Company and Old Republic Insurance Company.
Laurence W. Dague, Assistant Attorney General, with him William O'Toole and Sandra S. Christianson, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 618]
Philip L. Stegner, Jr. (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which reversed his award and dismissed
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 619]
his claim for compensation under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1
The Claimant's petition for compensation alleged that he was totally disabled due to coal worker's pneumoconiosis (coal miner's lung), and that the condition was caused by his exposure to coal dust during his employment with the Canterbury Coal Company (Company), one of the respondents herein. After a hearing, the referee awarded Stegner benefits under the Act, finding that the Claimant was permanently partially disabled "as a result of coal worker's pneumoconiosis."
Both the Company and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, another respondent before this Court, appealed the referee's decision to the Board. The Board remanded the case to the referee for further determination, giving the Claimant leave to amend his petition and to offer other evidence. At the remand hearing no additional evidence was offered; and again the referee awarded compensation to the Claimant. The Company and the Commonwealth took another appeal to the Board, which on that occasion reversed the referee's award without taking additional evidence. Claimant Stegner then appealed to this Court.
The sole question presented by the parties for review, is whether the evidence sufficiently supports the referee's finding that the Claimant had a permanent partial disability due to pneumoconiosis.
The competent evidence concerning the existence, cause, and degree of the Claimant's disability came from three doctors: one presented by the Claimant, one by ...