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.

JOHN OFCANSKY v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LINCOLN HILLS COUNTRY CLUB) (10/01/82)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: October 1, 1982.

JOHN OFCANSKY, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LINCOLN HILLS COUNTRY CLUB), RESPONDENTS

Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of John Ofcansky v. Lincoln Hills Country Club, No. A-77368.

COUNSEL

Anthony J. Martin, with him Mary Ann Rapp Durkin, Martin, Durkin & Martin, for petitioner.

Frederick C. Trenor, II, with him Lawrence J. Baldasare, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 250]

John Ofcansky appeals a Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board order reversing a referee's decision and denying benefits. We affirm.

A co-employee of Ofcansky, a minor,*fn1 agreed to drive him home if they left work at the same time. One night, because the ride was unavailable, they walked home and Ofcansky was struck by an automobile causing the injuries for which he seeks compensation.

The referee granted benefits, finding that Ofcansky's employment contract provided for this kind of transportation. The Board reversed, concluding that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding.

Where the party with the burden of proof prevailed before the referee, our scope of review and that of the Board, when it takes no additional evidence, is limited to determining whether or not the referee's findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Vavro v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 462, 439 A.2d 841 (1981).

We hold that the referee's finding that Ofcansky's employment contract included transportation to his home is unsupported by substantial evidence.

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 251]

The Board concluded, and we agree, that Ofcansky should be denied benefits because he was injured while off the employer's premises and was not acting in furtherance of his employer's business and the alleged transportation was not provided in his employment contract. Davis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 262, 398 A.2d 1105 (1979).

Affirmed.

Order

The order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, No. 77368 dated March 12, 1981, is hereby 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.