Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Sharon F. Pecht v. The Arrow Company, No. A-91453.
Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., Barron & Zimmerman, for petitioner.
Joseph P. Green, Lee, Martin, Green & Reiter, for respondents.
Judges Barry, Smith, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 458]
Sharon F. Pecht (Claimant) appeals from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board). We affirm.
The record discloses the following. Claimant was employed by The Arrow Company, Cluett-Peabody (Employer) as a bottom hemmer. Claimant's job duties required her to pick up bundles which weighed approximately thirty pounds, place them on a table, and when finished sewing the shirt hems in her bundle, she was required to put the bundle on a truck. Claimant testified that her job involved a lot of bilateral twisting. On February 20, 1984, Claimant injured her back while in the course of her employment. As a result of this injury, she was unable to work and was treated by Dr. Philip G. Roberts, an orthopedic surgeon, from March 2, 1984 until July 10, 1984 for her back problem.*fn1 On May 1,
[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 4591984]
Claimant attempted to return to work but was unsuccessful. On May 17, 1984, Claimant filed a petition for workmen's compensation benefits.
At the hearing before the referee, Claimant in addition to testifying on her own behalf, presented the deposition testimonies of Dr. Roberts and Dr. Askin. No testimony was presented by Employer. The referee concluded that Claimant suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition from February 20, 1984 until July 10, 1984. The referee, accepting the testimony of Dr. Roberts as credible, further opined that Claimant had fully recovered from her work-related injury as of July 10, 1984; however, she remained disabled due to a pre-existing condition. Therefore, because any disability after July 10, 1984 was due to a pre-existing condition, the referee ordered compensation for the period February 20, 1984 to July 10, 1984, but denied compensation thereafter. The Board affirmed the referee. Hence, this appeal.
Initially we note that when petitioned to review a decision of the Board, 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; Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987). Claimant's sole assertion on appeal is that the referee and the Board erred in denying compensation benefits because in light of our Supreme Court's recent decision, Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Corning Glass), 515 Pa. 315, 528 A.2d 580 (1987), Claimant is entitled to benefits.
In Farquhar, the claimant was employed by Corning Glass as a screen maker, a job which required much physical labor. In ...