Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (JOSEPH A. MAGNONE) (08/04/82)

decided: August 4, 1982.

ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (JOSEPH A. MAGNONE), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Joseph A. Magnone v. Armco Steel Corporation, No. A-71470.

COUNSEL

John J. Petrush, Petrush & Miller, Ltd., for petitioner.

Edwin H. Beachler, McArdle, Caroselli, Spagnolli & Beachler, for respondent, Joseph J. Magnone.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 119]

Armco Steel Corporation (Armco), the employer, appeals from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's award to Joseph A. Magnone (claimant) for the permanent loss of his right eye under Section 306(7) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1

On August 11, 1973, the claimant, while in the course of his employment as a millwright helper, sustained

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 120]

    two injuries to his right eye. The first occurred when a fellow employee threw a metal nut into a bucket of kerosene the claimant was leaning over while cleaning some tools, causing kerosene to splash into the claimant's eye. He irrigated the eye with water and apparently, having no subsequent problem, returned to his duties. Several hours later, however, while utilizing*fn2 a 15-pound sledge hammer, he experienced blurring of his vision and soon thereafter a substantial loss of vision in his right eye.

At the referee's hearing, Dr. Carlisle E. McKee, an opthalmologist, testified that he had examined the claimant and, after performing various corroborative clinical tests, that it was his opinion that the action of the claimant in swinging the sledge hammer had caused a "dilated branch" of the central retinal vein which resulted in multiple hemorrhages within the right eye. The claimant testified that he was unable to read with his right eye, can only see light and images, and has difficulty in judging distances.*fn3 The referee found that:

     the claimant has lost the use of his right eye for all practical intents and purposes. The only visual acuity remaining in the right eye is the claimant's ability to distinguish shadow against light. It is useless for normal functions when utilized alone or in conjunction with the left eye, such as reading, identification, depth perception, and so on.

The Board, without taking additional evidence, affirmed the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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