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.

RONALD G. CARRASQUER v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MADER'S CARPET CLEANERS PITTSBURGH (03/23/89)

decided: March 23, 1989.

RONALD G. CARRASQUER, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MADER'S CARPET CLEANERS OF PITTSBURGH, INC.), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Ronald G. Carrasquer v. Mader's Carpet Cleaners of Pittsburgh, Inc., No. A-91969.

COUNSEL

Lawrence R. Chaban, Yablonski, Costello, Leckie & Chaban, for petitioner.

Timothy G. Lenahan, with him, Joseph B. Sebastianelli, Lenahan & Dempsey, P.C., for respondent, Mader's Carpet Cleaners of Pittsburgh, Inc.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 385]

Ronald G. Carrasquer (petitioner) petitions for review of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal

[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 386]

Board (Board) which affirmed a decision of the referee suspending benefits. We affirm.

This matter was initiated when Mader's Carpet Cleaners of Pittsburgh, Inc. (employer) filed a termination petition pursuant to Section 413 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act).*fn1 Five hearings were held before a referee and evidence was also introduced by way of deposition. On July 3, 1986, the referee issued his decision suspending benefits, therein finding that petitioner was capable of performing light-duty work and that employer had shown the availability of such work. On appeal, the Board affirmed the referee's decision holding that employer had met its burden of proof in showing the availability of work in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Petitioner filed a timely petition for review with this Court.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the Board erred in determining that petitioner was domiciled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for purposes of establishing job availability.*fn2

The Board, in its opinion, stated that:

[t]estimony in the record indicates that the Claimant, from the date of his injury in September of 1983 has either lived or temporarily resided as a transient in eight separate locations of the country. The record establishes that the Claimant lived in Pittsburgh at least from September of 1983 to the end 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.