decided: September 24, 1980.
W. MAX STOUFFER, PETITIONER
JONES MOTOR CO., INC., RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of W. Max Stouffer v. Jones Motor Co., Inc., No. A-76083.
John McCrea III, McCrea & Davis, for petitioner.
W. Jeffrey Sidebottom, Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 59]
W. Max Stouffer (claimant) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed a referee's dismissal of claimant's petition to set aside a final receipt. We affirm.
Claimant had sustained a work-related back injury on February 22, 1973, while working for Jones Motors, Inc. (employer), and received workmen's compensation benefits through June 1, 1973. Claimant executed a final receipt on July 12, 1973 but thereafter, on June 3, 1975, filed a petition to set aside the final receipt, alleging that he had suffered a recurrence of the disability caused by the February 1973 incident. The referee and Board dismissed the petition, and this appeal followed.
Claimant argues that the referee capriciously disregarded evidence of his doctor, who testified that claimant was disabled. Employer, however, presented medical testimony that claimant's injury was fully healed by June 2, 1973 and that claimant was not disabled. It is axiomatic that questions of credibility are left to the referee, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Quick, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 359 A.2d 852 (1976), and the fact that the referee believes the testimony of one doctor over that of another is not
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 60]
a capricious disregard of the evidence. Kocher v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 106, 415 A.2d 162 (1980).*fn1
Accordingly, we enter the following
And Now, this 24th day of September, 1980, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above captioned case, dated June 21, 1979, affirming the dismissal of the petition of W. Max Stouffer,? is hereby affirmed.