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.

BABCOCK & WILCOX AND INSURANCE COMPANY NORTH AMERICA v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MARSHALL) (05/06/86)

decided: May 6, 1986.

BABCOCK & WILCOX AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, PETITIONERS
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MARSHALL), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, in case of Glenn H. Marshall v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, No. A-87230.

COUNSEL

Raymond F. Keisling, Will, Keisling, Ganassi & McCloskey, for petitioners.

Samuel S. Blaufeld, with him, Pamela M. Schiller, for respondent, Glenn H. Marshall.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Rogers and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 46]

This matter and that of Armco Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Robbins), 97 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 49, 508 A.2d 1305 (1986), also decided this day, are employers' petitions for review of orders of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirming referees' awards of compensation to workers for "the complete loss of hearing," compensable under Section 306(c)(8) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ยง 513.

The claimant in this case, Glenn H. Marshall, filed a petition alleging that he had suffered a complete loss of hearing in his left ear as the result of noise at his workplace. The referee heard evidence and awarded compensation based on his findings that the claimant had lost the use of hearing in his left ear for all practical intents and purposes and that "he cannot utilize his sense of hearing in the manner in which nature intended." The basis of these findings are answers of the claimant's medical witness during examination by claimant's counsel, as follows:

Q. In view of these facts and based on your experience, can you say within a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether Mr. Marshall can utilize his hearing in the manner that nature intended?

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 47]

A. Yes, I can state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. Glenn Marshall has suffered a complete loss of hearing in both ears and that he can no longer use his hearing in the way nature intended him to use.

Q. Is it your opinion then, Doctor, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the Claimant has sustained a complete loss of hearing in both ears for all practical intents and purposes?

A. Yes, that is my opinion.

The Appeal Board affirmed, quoting the following from the opinion of this court in Latrobe Steel Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Goodman), 79 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ...


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.