Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Calleb Anam v. Hahnemann, No. A-90895.
Ronald J. Harper, for petitioner.
Martin J. Fallon, Jr., Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, for respondent, Hahnemann University and Hospital.
Judges Craig and Doyle, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 484]
Calleb Anam (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which denied Claimant's request for rehearing and affirmed a referee's decision denying Claimant workmen's compensation benefits.
The somewhat confusing procedural history in this matter can be summarized as follows. On or about December 10, 1984 Claimant filed a petition for workmen's compensation benefits pursuant to Section 108 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1208, alleging that he suffered from a continuing disability which had commenced on March 11, 1982.*fn1 Hahnemann Hospital (Employer) filed a timely answer thereto asserting the defense of res judicata. Claimant appeared at four separate referee hearings: January 23, 1985,
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 485]
March 26, 1985, May 28, 1985 and August 22, 1985. At each hearing before the referee, Claimant was without the benefit of counsel.*fn2 The hearings conducted on March 26, 1985 and May 28, 1985 were specifically continued so that Claimant could obtain representation of counsel and medical testimony in support of his position.*fn3 The referee concluded that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissed Claimant's petition. Claimant appealed the referee's denial of benefits to the Board and also made an alternative request for a remand of the matter to the referee. On July 3, 1986, the board affirmed the referee's denial of benefits and denied Claimant's request for remand. On August 4, 1986, Claimant filed a petition for review with this Court seeking reversal of the Board's decision, or in the alternative a remand to the referee for a new hearing on the merits.
On July 15, 1986 Claimant also filed a petition for rehearing with the Board.*fn4 This petition requested not only a rehearing with respect to the instant proceedings (the proceedings before Referee Perry) but also, with respect to the earlier decision issued by Referee Stander which awarded Claimant benefits for the period March, 1982 to January, 1983. Subsequently, Employer filed an answer to the petition for rehearing. On April 24, 1987 the Board denied the request for rehearing as
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 486]
to Referee Stander's decision because it was untimely pursuant to Section 426 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 871 and also as to Referee Perry's decision because the evidence sought to be introduced was available at the time of the hearing and was merely cumulative.
On July 20, 1987 Employer filed an Application for Leave to Supply Materials Omitted from the Record pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1951(b) with the Commonwealth Court. Pursuant to said application, Employer seeks to supplement the record herein with the July 15, 1986 petition for rehearing, Employer's answer ...