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.

GATEWAY COAL COMPANY v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (TONY J. MOLITORIS) (11/10/83)

decided: November 10, 1983.

GATEWAY COAL COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (TONY J. MOLITORIS), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Tony J. Molitoris v. Gateway Coal Co., No. A-80776.

COUNSEL

Raymond F. Keisling, Will and Keisling, for petitioner.

C. Jerome Moschetta, for respondent, Tony J. Molitoris.

Judges Blatt, MacPhail and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.

Author: Barbieri

[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 270]

Gateway Coal Company, Petitioner, comes before this Court requesting review of the action of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in sustaining

[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 271]

    an award by a compensation referee to Claimant, Tony J. Molitoris, for total disability resulting from coal workers' pneumoconiosis. Petitioner presents for our consideration two contentions: (1) proceedings on the present petition are barred on the grounds of res judicata because of a prior unappealed decision of a referee disallowing compensation for the same disease and (2) Respondents' medical witness was incompetent to give x-ray testimony as to pneumoconiosis, so that the referee and the Board erred in sustaining the award on such medical evidence, specifically in adopting the testimony of Claimant's medical witness over that of the defendant on the basis of credibility. We disagree with both contentions and will affirm.

Claimant, having been employed by various coal companies in Pennsylvania from 1928 to June 20, 1974, was last employed in the coal mining industry by the self-insured defendant from 1963 to June 20, 1974. He has had no exposure to any occupational hazard after June 20, 1974. His first claim petition, claiming total disability as of August 30, 1974, resulted in a referee's disallowance order dated May 20, 1975, affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board without further appeal. The present petition, filed December 13, 1976, claims compensation for total disability as of October 14, 1976. At the outset, the referee disallowed compensation, holding that the prior decision was a res judicata bar to the second one, but the Board reversed and remanded, whereupon the record before us was made, consisting principally of evidence provided by Dr. A. Carl Walker for Claimant and Dr. W. Keith C. Morgan, for Petitioner.

In making its res judicata contention, Petitioner concedes that normally, due to the progressive nature of occupational diseases such as the coal worker's pneumoconiosis in this case, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a later claim after a prior disallowance.

[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 272]

    free from an occupational disease. Rather the Referee finds the Claimant is neither partially or totally disabled from coal worker's pneumoconiosis and as such has not suffered a compensable injury. The Referee finding pulmonary function studies are normal is not tantamount to a finding there is no disease process. We thus reaffirm the prior Board's Decision that this present Claim Petition is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Emphasis in original.)

We address now Petitioner's second contention that Claimant's medical witness, Dr. A. Carl Walker, was incompetent and that, therefore, the findings based upon his testimony are "unsupported by substantial evidence." Petitioner concludes its argument on this point as follows: "Since the Board committed an error of law in holding that the witness' untruthfulness presented a mere question of credibility, and since without his ...


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.