82 Pa. Commw. 562 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (employer) petitions for review of the opinion and order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board reversing the order of the referee and awarding compensation to Thomas Furnari, Jr. (claimant) with interest for the period from April 25,1981 to October 5, 1981 and payment of a medical bill under the provisions of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act).
On April 24, 1981, while on the employer’s premises, the claimant was leaving work after punching out. As he was walking toward the gate his leg gave way for no known reason and he fell to the ground fracturing his right distal tibia and fibula bones.
The referee dismissed the claim petition, concluding that because the claimant’s injury was not caused by the condition of the employer’s premises or by reason of the operation of the employer’s business thereon, the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury under the Act.
The employer contends that the Board exceeded its scope' of review by substituting a finding of fact that the claimant fell and that his injury was caused by his fall and that the Board’s legal conclusion that the claimant’s injury occurred in the course of his employment and-was related thereto is, therefore, erroneous as a matter of law. We disagree.
Of course, issues of credibility, resolution of conflicting testimony and the weight to be given to the evidence are matters within the province of the-referee in a workmen’s compensation proceeding. Port Authority of Allegheny County. Neither the Board nor this Court can substitute its discretion for that of the referee if the referee’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Id. However, the Board did not substitute its own findings for those of the referee in this case.
In his finding of fact number 4, the referee found:
On April 24, 1981, after the claimant had worked the 3-11 shift and had punched out, he was- walking along the usual path, for leaving the mill which was of dirt and gravel construclion at a point twenty-five (25) feet from the gate at Laurel Avenue, the claimant’s leg “gave way” for no known reason as a result of which he suffered a fracture of the right distal tibia and fibula bones.
Accordingly, we will affirm the Board.
And Now, this 25th day of May, 1984, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-83044, is affirmed.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1066.
In a workmen’s compensation proceeding, the claimant has the burden of establishing the right to compensation and all of the
In Krist, we held that a claimant’s accidental fall occurring on the employer’s premises at a time when his presence is required by the terms of his employment which results in an injury or an aggravation of a preexisting condition is compensable under the Act.