Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Richard G. Losco v. Armco Steel Corporation, No. A-79765.
John J. Petrush, Petrush & Miller, Ltd., for petitioner.
Anthonio D. Pyle, with him Joel Persky, Baskin and Sears, for respondent, Richard G. Losco.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 525]
Petitioner Armco Steel Corporation (Armco Steel) has appealed to this Court from an order entered by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board affirmed a referee's decision awarding claimant Richard G. Losco (Losco) compensation for the loss of use of one-half of his left index finger.
Claimant was injured in the course of his employment with Armco Steel on February 13, 1979, when he
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 526]
sustained a deep laceration of the distal phalange of his left index finger. As a result of this injury, he was assigned to a job he was capable of performing, and received benefits until his return to regular duties on March 18, 1979. A final receipt was executed by the claimant on September 21, 1979.
Subsequently, the claimant filed a Petition to Set Aside the Final Receipt, alleging the loss of use of one-half the index finger. Following hearings held before him on May 2, 1980 and on August 1, 1980, the referee rendered a decision awarding claimant benefits for loss of use of one-half of the finger under Section 306(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1 Petitioner's appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board resulted in affirmation of the award. The matter is now before this Court on Armco Steel's Petition for Review. The sole issue for our consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the referee's finding that claimant has lost the use of one-half his left index finger for all practical intents and purposes.
Where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has prevailed before the referee and the Board has taken no additional evidence, this Court's scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed, or whether any finding of fact necessary to support the referee's adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. Cox v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 59, 430 A.2d 1009 (1981). When a finding of fact of the referee is supported by substantial evidence, neither the Board
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 527]
nor this Court has any power to disturb that finding. See, Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. ...