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.

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (JOSEPH F. KLEIN) (09/07/83)

decided: September 7, 1983.

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (JOSEPH F. KLEIN), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Joseph F. Klein v. Duquesne Light Company, No. A-79368.

COUNSEL

John A. Lee, Senior Attorney, for petitioner.

John M. McTiernan, McArdle, Caroselli, Spagnolli & Beachler, for respondent, Joseph F. Klein.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 68]

Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne) appeals a Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) order affirming a referee's award of benefits to Joseph Klein. We reverse in part and remand in part.

Klein, a Duquesne employee, injured his arm at work on July 15, 1979, but continued to work full-time, including overtime. In December, 1979, Duquesne prohibited him from working overtime as a precaution against further injury. Klein then filed for benefits, contending that he was partially-disabled.

The referee awarded partial-disability benefits, running from the date of the injury.*fn1 He assessed the cost of a supplemental medical examination against Klein because he found that the examination had been unnecessary. On appeal, the WCAB affirmed the benefits award but reversed the referee's decision as to examination costs.

We must decide: 1) whether the award of benefits was proper; 2) whether the payments should have run

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 69]

    from the date of injury or from the date that Klein stopped working overtime; and 3) whether Klein should have been charged with the costs of the supplemental medical examination.

Where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, errors of law were committed, or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Hemer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 174, 454 A.2d 225 (1983).

Duquesne alleges that the benefits award violates Section 306(b) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act),*fn2 ...


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.