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.

LARRY M. RUVO v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION MATERIAL (08/23/88)

decided: August 23, 1988.

LARRY M. RUVO, PETITIONER,
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION MATERIAL, INC.), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from No. A-92201; Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.

COUNSEL

Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., for petitioner.

Francis DiSalle, Faderewski and Herrington, for respondents.

Doyle and McGinley, JJ., and Kalish, Senior Judge.

Author: Kalish

[ 138 Pa. Commw. Page 3]

Larry M. Ruvo (claimant) seeks review of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the referee's decision to dismiss claimant's petition for benefits. We affirm.

The claimant alleges that on January 17, 1986, he woke up with terrible leg pains and muscle spasms in his left leg. The claimant was diagnosed as having a herniated disc. He contends that the leg pains and muscle spasms that he experienced on January 17, 1986 were actually the result of a back injury which he suffered at work two weeks earlier.

In order to establish a right to workmen's compensation, a claimant must show that the injury occurred in the course of his employment and is related thereto. Section 301(c)(1) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ยง 411(1). "Where there is no obvious causal connection between an injury and the alleged work-related cause, that connection must be established by unequivocal medical evidence, i.e., evidence which establishes that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the injury was in fact work-related." Farquhar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Corning Glass Works), 515 Pa. 315, 324, 528 A.2d 580, 585 (1987).

At the hearing before the referee, claimant described the nature of his work as a laborer for International Communication Material, Inc. (employer). His job required the unloading of iron powder and dry ink which was contained in barrels weighing about 500 pounds each. The claimant placed these barrels on a pallet, and moved them with hooks. The job also involved bending down into the barrels and scooping out the contents of the barrels to weigh the contents. The claimant testified that his job required a lot of bending and lifting. Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 4-5. He testified at the hearing that he had first experienced back pains about two weeks prior to January 17, 1986, and

[ 138 Pa. Commw. Page 4]

    that this back pain had been caused by heavy lifting which he did on January 6 and 7, 1986 at work. N.T. at 18-19. The claimant alleges that he was totally disabled from January 17, 1986 to June 17, 1986, except for the time period of January 28, 1986 to February 18, 1986 when he attempted to work.

The referee stated, in her finding of fact number two, that "claimant's testimony as to a work-related back or leg injury of January 17, 1986 was very vague and questionable. Your referee finds claimant's testimony was not credible." The referee's opinion states that there was a third report by Dr. Fred C. Edge. In this third report, Dr. Edge stated:

[Claimant] gives a history of pain beginning on January 6th or 7th which involved both knee pain and back pain. Patient noted this pain after doing lifting at work and subsequently pain has been off and on . . . . In reviewing the patient's daily work activities and activities outside of work, it is my professional opinion, with a reasonable degree of ...


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.