Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Shirley (Roth) Kopp v. Doylestown Processing Co., No. A-78139.
James J. Riley, James J. Riley and Associates, P.C., for petitioner.
L. Oliver Frey, with him David L. Pennington and Susan McLaughlin, Harvey, Pennington, Herting and Renneisen, Ltd., for respondent, Doylestown Processing Company.
Judges Craig, Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Concurring Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 293]
Shirley Kopp (claimant) appeals here an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which dismissed her petition for reinstatement of benefits as untimely.
The relevant facts are as follows. The claimant suffered a compensable injury on August 22, 1972 and received benefits until January of 1974 when her employer filed a petition for termination accompanied by a physician's affidavit of recovery. The claimant
[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 294]
did not answer this petition nor appear at any hearings on the issue, and the referee entered an order terminating compensation on December 18, 1974. The present petition for reinstatement was filed on July 24, 1978 and contained an allegation that the claimant was not notified of the adverse decision on the employer's termination petition until October 5, 1976.*fn1 The petition also averred that the claimant remained continually disabled from the original injury in August of 1972. A referee ruled that, because the claimant did not receive notice of the entry of the order granting the employer's petition for termination until October 5, 1976, he would vacate that order and allow the claimant to present evidence in opposition to the employer's termination petition. The employer appealed this order to the Board which reversed the referee and dismissed the claimant's petition for reinstatement. The instant appeal was then filed.
Pursuant to Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704, we must affirm an order of the Board unless the adjudication violates the party's constitutional rights, is not in accordance with law or applicable administrative regulations, or if necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. This case presents a question of law.
The claimant argues here that, because she did not receive notice of the order granting the employer's petition for termination until almost two years after it was entered, she should not be barred by the statute of limitations pertaining to her reinstatement petition.
[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 295]
Section 406 of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § ...