80 Pa. Commw. 129 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Employer appeals from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed ■the referee’s award of compensation to decedent employee ’s widow and children.
On July 13, 1972, employee, John Frederick, suffered a head injury while employed as a laborer at Employer ’s saw mill. After the injury, employee experienced headaches, irritability, and occasional blackouts. On October 3, 1972, employee lost consiciousness while driving, and was killed when his oar crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with a truck. On December 7,1973, employee’s widow, Darlene Frederick (Claimant), filed a death claim with the Bureau of
A hearing was held, ¡and on March 4,1975, the referee entered an award in favor of Claimant. On August 28, 1975, the Board reversed ¡and remanded for a specific finding ¡of fact as to whether or not the fatal accident was caused by the work-related head injury. After Employer’s appeal to this .Court was quashed as interlocutory,
Employer contends that Claimant did not ¡sustain her burden of proof in eistabhshing a Causal connection between the work-related injury and the blackout, which admittedly ¡caused the fatal accident of October 3, 1972. Employer cites testimony taken at the first hearing on July 29, 1974, in which Dr. Dennis A. Sharkey, Jr., a: pathologist who performed an autopsy on the decedent ¡employee, ¡stated ¡that it was “possible” that employee had suffered brain damage as a result of his work-related injury.
In the present case a review of the record indicates that immediately .after 'the testimony cited by 'the Employer, Dr. .Sharkey further testified that a person who had suffered a head injury and later experienced blackouts would be suffering from a “post concussion syndrome,”
iSuoh testimony clearly establishes a causal connection between employee’s work-related head injury and the “post concussion syndrome,” a condition which ultimately caused his death. In light of this
Employer also contends that the initial remand by the Board on August 28,1975, was improper. “ [T]be Board’s power to remand cases to the referee . . . [is] limited to two ■instances: (1) where the findings of the referee are not ¡supported by competent evidence or (2) where the referee has failed to make a finding on a crucial issue, necessary for the proper application of the law.” LoRubbio v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 529, 532, 411 A.2d 866, 867 (I960).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of ■the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.
Order
Now, February 3, 1984, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the above referenced matter, ¡dated January 21, 1982, is hereby affirmed.
See Section 410 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s ¡Oompensaition Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §751.'
Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Burke-Parsons Bowlby Corp., 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 498, 359 A.2d 855 (1976).
In Philadelphia College, we held 'that opinion testimony from a medical expert will support an award even if the witness admits to uncertainty, reservation, doubt or lack of information with respect to medical or scientific details, so long as the witness does mot recant the opinion or belief first expressed.
Dr. Sharkey described “post concussion .syndrome” .as a condition occurring as a result of a blow .to (he head, and characterized by irritability, headaches, and periodic loss of consciousness.
See Section 419 of the Act, 77 P.S. §852.