Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Andrew H. Furman v. Felmont Oil Corporation, No. A-89878.
Eugene F. Scanlon, Jr., Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for petitioners.
John J. Bagnato, Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose, for respondent, Andrew H. Furman.
Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 11]
This is an appeal by Felmont Oil Company and the Insurance Company of North America (Petitioners) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the referee's order which directed Petitioners to furnish Andrew H. Furman (Claimant) with institutionalized custodial care. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
On February 27, 1965, Claimant was injured in the course of his employment. Claimant has received disability
[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 12]
compensation pursuant to an Agreement for the Payment of Compensation dated July 16, 1965 and will continue to receive benefits for the remainder of his lifetime. Petitioners have also made medical benefit payments to Claimant in excess of $16,000.
Claimant's wife, Gladys Furman, filed a petition on her husband's behalf on October 9, 1984 alleging that Petitioners have refused to honor various medical bills, and to provide for the institutionalized care of Claimant in a veteran's home, a licensed health care facility. Although there is no dispute that Claimant is totally disabled and requires institutionalized care, Petitioners maintain that they are not responsible for providing Claimant with this medical care.
At the hearing before the referee, Claimant submitted into evidence the following: (1) the Agreement for Payment of Compensation for Disability or Permanent Injury (Compensation Agreement); (2) an Additional Medical Endorsement effective January 1, 1967 (Endorsement); and (3) an Additional Medical Amendatory Endorsement effective January 1, 1967 (Amendatory Endorsement). Petitioners were unable to provide written documentation, despite a subpoena to do so, of the policy covering Claimant's work injury.
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).
The first question raised on appeal is whether the Board has jurisdiction to review a workmen's compensation agreement and determine the liability of an insurer. Section 303 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. ...