Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM B. BEEHLER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/08/81)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: September 8, 1981.

WILLIAM B. BEEHLER, SR., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND BEEHLER CONSTRUCTION CO., RESPONDENTS

Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of William B. Beehler, Sr. v. Beehler Construction Co., No. A-76228.

COUNSEL

William K. Sayer, for petitioner.

George W. Teets, for respondent, Beehler Construction Co.

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

Author: Blatt

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 534]

The appellant, William B. Beehler, Sr., who was totally disabled in 1972 due to a fall which occurred in the course of his employment as a carpenter,*fn1 appeals from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which granted a petition which was filed by his former employer, Beehler Construction Company, and its insurer to terminate his benefits.

The appellant contends that the finding that he could resume his occupation as a carpenter as of August 24, 1976, was not supported by substantial evidence before the referee. We must disagree.

A physician for the employer examined the appellant on August 24, 1976, and testified that, although the appellant exhibited a 50% limitation in the external rotation*fn2 of his right arm and a 10% limitation of the right shoulder on upper extension, the doctor could himself manipulate the appellant's arm and shoulder without limitation and that no pain was elicited during the examination.*fn3 The doctor concluded that the appellant was not disabled and that there

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 535]

    were no effects which would prevent his performing his job as a carpenter.

Although there was conflicting medical evidence*fn4 that might have led us to reach a different result if we had been the factfinder here, the resolution of such conflicts in testimony is solely within the province of the referee and where, as here, his findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we may not disturb them. Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 541, 423 A.2d 479 (1980); F. W. Kestle Associates v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 313, 421 A.2d 489 (1980).

We will therefore affirm the Board's termination of benefits.

Order

And Now, this 8th day of September, 1981, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.