Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Marian Brandon a/k/a Williams v. Memorial Osteopathic Hospital, No. A-83263.
Daniel K. Deardorff, William F. Martson, P.C., for petitioner.
David L. Lutz, with him Joseph M. Melillo, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and James F. Carl, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, for respondents.
Judges Craig, Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 519]
In this workmen's compensation appeal, petitioner Memorial Osteopathic Hospital appeals an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, affirming a referee's decision to reinstate benefits for the claimant, Marian Williams.
The questions are (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the referee's findings that Williams has a current disability caused by an injury sustained during the course of her employment at Memorial Hospital; and (2) whether the referee capriciously disregarded competent evidence in finding that Memorial did not prove availability of suitable work for Williams. We affirm the order of the board on both questions.
The board made the following findings of fact. In August, 1979 Marian Williams sustained an injury to the left groin area while moving a mattress in the course of her employment as a licensed practice nurse (LPN) at Memorial Osteopathic Hospital. The injury required hospitalization, and in October, 1979 Williams began receiving workmen's compensation benefits. After moving to Harrisburg, Williams worked as a file clerk for Maryland Casualty Insurance from December, 1979 until September, 1980, when the pain forced her to leave her position and seek additional medical treatment.
Memorial successfully petitioned for termination of benefits as of January 31, 1980. Williams did not appear at the termination hearing because Memorial was unable to locate her to give notification of the proceeding.
However, in September, 1980 Williams successfully petitioned for the reinstatement of workmen's compensation benefits, retroactive to February 1, 1980, which is the decision now at issue.
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 5201]
On a reinstatement petition, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that a disability has increased or recurred after the date of the prior award, and, to meet this burden, must show that his or her physical condition has actually changed in some manner. Harris Weinstein/Clyde Shirt Co. v. ...