Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Leroy Butler v. City of Philadelphia, No. A-73201.
Garnita M. Selby, Selby and Merriweather, for petitioner.
Robert E. Silverman, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Judith N. Dean, Deputy City Solicitor, and Alan J. Davis, City Solicitor, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 315]
Leroy Butler appeals a Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board order which vacated a referee's decision
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 316]
directing a further payment of $1,530.00 in medical expenses. We affirm.
This is another burden of proof case. The facts follow: Butler was injured while employed by the City of Philadelphia and they entered into an Agreement of Compensation for disability; the City to pay Butler $781.71 in compensation and $1,530.00 in medical expense. The City issued a check to Butler for the total amount of $2,311.71, which he endorsed and cashed. Butler, when pursued by his physician for payment of fees, filed a claim for these medical expenses which he asserted had not been paid.*fn1
Butler's physician, the only witness before the referee, testified that he had not been paid the $1,530.00 owed him. Based on this testimony, the referee directed the City to pay Butler $1,530.00.
On appeal, the Board took additional evidence in accordance with Section 854 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 854. The City introduced the cancelled check and the initial computations showing the specific breakdown of the $2,311.71, purporting to include the $1,530.00 in medical expenses. Based on this evidence, the Board vacated the portion of the referee's order directing the City to pay the additional $1,530.00, finding that Butler had already been paid for his medical expenses.
Our scope of review where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed below*fn2 is whether the Board has committed an ...