Appeal from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Joseph Dugan v. Boron Oil Company, A-90820, CCA-90821.
John P. Liekar, Jr., for petitioner.
Raymond F. Keisling, Will, Keisling, Ganassi & McCloskey, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 605]
Joseph Dugan (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying benefits to
[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 606]
Claimant pursuant to The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1601.1. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This matter involves proceedings held on a petition of Boron Oil Company (Boron) to suspend compensation payable to Claimant alleging that on or about January 30, 1984 Claimant refused an offer of employment which he was capable of performing, and a petition for compensation filed by Claimant for the specific loss of use of his left arm for all practical intents and purposes.
The relevant facts are as follows. On January 11, 1982, Claimant suffered a fractured left elbow in the course of his employment. A notice of compensation payable was issued to Claimant for his work-related injury. On May 13, 1982, Claimant returned to work at the same rate of pay he was receiving at the time of his injury. However, Claimant again became disabled in January, 1983 as a result of the January 11, 1982 injury and received disability compensation for this second period of disability.
The referee concluded that Claimant's disability payments should be suspended because he refused an offer of employment which he was capable of performing, and that Claimant failed to establish a loss of use of the arm for all practical intents and purposes.
Two issues have been raised for our consideration: (1) whether the referee erred in concluding that sufficient evidence existed to support Boron's request for suspension of workmen's compensation benefits, and (2) whether the referee erred in concluding that Claimant had not lost the use of his left arm for all practical intents and purposes.
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or ...