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.

BART GREEN v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RALSTON PURINA COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (02/19/86)

denied: February 19, 1986.

BART GREEN, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RALSTON PURINA COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Bart Green v. Ralston Purina Company, No. A-85220.

COUNSEL

Paul J. Dellasega, Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., for petitioner.

Katherine M. Mezzanotte, Thompson & Pennell, for respondent, Ralston Purina Company.

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

Author: Macphail

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 206]

Bart Green (Claimant) appeals an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision suspending his compensation benefits. We reverse.

Claimant was employed by Ralston Purina Co. (Employer) as a line operator whose duties included lifting bags onto a machine that packed dog food and climbing a ladder and adjusting bags when the machine

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 207]

    malfunctioned. Claimant suffered a compensable injury to his back on May 28, 1981, for which he received total disability payments. Employer subsequently filed a petition to suspend benefits effective February 8, 1982. The petition was filed pursuant to a medical report issued by Dr. Rex A. Herbert, D.O., stating that an examination of Claimant failed to reveal any objective findings to support Claimant's complaint and that in the doctor's opinion Claimant was not suffering from any physical disability.

Evidence received by the referee consisted of the deposition of Dr. Herbert, the testimony of two of Employer's supervisors and the Claimant. Claimant presented no medical evidence.

The referee made the following findings of fact:

1. The claimant was employed as a line operator when he was injured in the course of his employment. Claimant received compensation and the defendant seeks to modify and terminate compensation.*fn1

2. As a line operator, the claimant was involved with a machine that would pack dog food. The job involved climbing, lifting of bags ...


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.