Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Daphne E. Robinson v. Olivetti Corporation, No. A-74155.
Edward H. Jordan, Jr., with him Joseph P. Hafer, Thomas & Thomas, for petitioners.
Joseph M. Melillo, Benjamin & Angino, P.C., for respondents.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 585]
Daphne Robinson, the claimant in this workmen's compensation case, worked for Olivetti Corporation on an assembly line where she used both hand and powered screw drivers in the assembly of typewriters.
She experienced disabling pain in her arm or shoulder and her employer filed an original and an amended notice of compensation payable. Only the amended notice is in the record certified to us. This records that the claimant was injured on March 2, 1977, that she was disabled as of March 8, 1977, and that the nature of the injury was tendonitis of the left arm. In June, 1977, the employer filed a petition for termination stating that the "claimant has fully recovered from tendonitis of left arm and is able to resume without limitation her previous occupation." This was accompanied by a doctor's affidavit that the claimant had fully recovered from her injury, to wit, "work related tendonitis left arm," and further that she was "able to resume without limitation her previous occupation."
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 586]
The matter of the petition for termination came on for hearing by a referee in August, 1977, at which the claimant appeared without counsel. The employer appeared by counsel with a lay witness who described the claimant's work as consisting of assemblying typewriters by joining parts with screws and in so doing lifting or moving the parts about her work place. The claimant testified that she could not at the time she testified pick things up with her left hand and arm; that she had no grip in the left hand; that she had a tingling sensation and pain in her arms and hands; that a doctor had told her that she was afflicted with chronic tendonitis; and that she had consulted physicians on account of pain in both arms and wrists.
At the conclusion of the hearing the employer's counsel was given leave to take and file the deposition of a company doctor. The deposition was taken but the claimant did not appear. The doctor testified on deposition that he saw the claimant on April 27, 1977; that he made a physical examination; that the claimant had tendonitis about the tendons on the front area of the left shoulder; that x-rays failed to reveal any bone or joint abnormalities; that he diagnosed tendonitis of the shoulder and upper arms; that tendonitis is an inflamation of the tendons by repetitive use of the shoulder; that he injected cortisone; that he saw the claimant again on May 23, 1977, when she was pain-free as far as her left shoulder was concerned but that she had some remaining pain in the areas of the lower part of the arm about the outer side of the left elbow which he injected; that he saw the claimant again May 31, 1977, at which time her left arm was free of symptoms but "that now she had begun having trouble on the right side;" and finally, that it was his opinion that the claimant was capable of returning to work.
The referee by decision dated September 22, 1977, found that the claimant was able to return to work
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 587]
without further disability on June 6, 1977, and ordered ...