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.

NANCY OSHINSKI v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LINCOLN BANK) (11/28/84)

decided: November 28, 1984.

NANCY OSHINSKI, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LINCOLN BANK), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Nancy Oshinski v. Lincoln Bank, No. A-82625.

COUNSEL

Sanford S. Marateck, Lark, Makowski, Marateck & Konopka, for petitioner.

Ronald F. Bove, with him, David A. Pennington, Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, for respondents.

Judges Rogers, Barry and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.

Author: Barbieri

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 182]

Nancy Oshinski, Claimant, appeals here the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) reversing a referee's dismissal of the Petition For Suspension filed by Lincoln Bank, Employer, and its insurer. We will reverse and reinstate the referee's order dismissing Employer's petition and ordering that compensation payments be continued.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury on May 30, 1972,*fn1 for which total disability compensation benefits were paid until Claimant was able to reemploy herself on May 31, 1978 in a job with duties within her diminished capabilities. During this employment she was paid partial disability benefits until the period from September 24, 1978 through May 26, 1979 when her earnings exceeded her pre-injury average weekly wage, so that all benefits during that period were properly discontinued.*fn2 The referee's findings include the following:

2. Claimant returned to work as a clerk for another company and on May 27, 1979, she resigned the position to accompany her husband to the Shamokin area.

3. Claimant has been unable to obtain employment within her physical capacity in the Shamokin area.

4. Defendant has failed to show the existence of any occupation within the claimant's current

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 183]

    residential area which can be performed by her within her physical limitations.

5. Defendant failed to show the availability of any occupation which the claimant ...


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.