92 Pa. Commw. 294 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1985
Opinion by
Chevis Davis, Claimant, appeals here an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) reversing the decision of a referee in which compensation is awarded.
The proceedings in this case were instituted by Claim Petition filed July 2, 1981 on which compensation is claimed for a back injury suffered on June 11,1981. In the petition it is stated that the back had previously been injured on May 28, 1981. Because of this averment of a prior injury, the Claim Petition was amended at a hearing on December 30, 1981 to read as a Reinstatement Petition. At a subsequent hearing on March 31,1982, it was agreed that the claim for disability would be limited to the period from June 11, 1981 to August 27, 1981, apparently for the purpose of obviating the need to produce witnesses as to medical circumstances, the Claimant thus invoking Section 422 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act),
9. The medical reports which were submitted as Claimant’s exhibits indicate that Claimant suffered from a lurnbo sacral strain. There is competent medical evidence of record indicating that Claimant sustained said injury during the course and scope of his employment on June 11, 1981, and further, that during the period from June 11, 1981 to August 27, 1981, the Claimant was unable to perform his duties*296 as a Sorter for the Defendant dne to the nature of his injury.2
The referee’s order is as follows:
AND NOW, to wit, this 13th day of September 1982, the Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition is hereby granted. (Claim Petition was amended to Reinstatement Petition.)
On appeal the Board reversed, noting that there was no medical evidence to support the referee’s 12th Finding of Fact, which reads:
12. I find that the Claimant presented unequivocal medical testimony to establish to [sic] a causal connection between the complaints and his employment of June 11, 1981. Pointing out that no medical evidence was offered
“on causation,” the Board reversed basing its reversal upon the burden of proof required in order to reinstate compensation relying upon our decision in Bentworth School District v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Morris), 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 315, 459 A.2d 906 (1983).
In Sacks, a back injury ease like this one where there was a lack of medical supporting testimony, we stated:
Where, however, a claimant’s disability is immediately and directly the result of a work incident, the fact-finder is not required to depend upon medical testimony to find the causal connection. See, e.g., Yellow Cab Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 37 Pa. Common*299 wealth Ct. 337, 390 A.2d 880 (1978); Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 437, 349 A.2d 529 (1975).
We believe that the recent Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Giant, Markets, Inc., 483 Pa. 421, 397 A.2d 415 (1979), requires us to hold that this case comes within the latter rule. In Morgan, the Court held that:
[w]here one is doing an act that requires force or strain and pain is experienced at the point of force or strain, the injury may be found to have been established. Pain is an excellent symptom of an injury. Of course, the trier of fact will determine the credibility of the witness’s testimony as to the total situation. We, therefore, find substantial competent evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Appeals, that the above facts establish a causal connection between the work incident and appellant’s injury.
483 Pa. at 424, 397 A.2d at 416.
The Supreme Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Morgan had a history of prior back trouble to which his disability could have been attributed.
Accordingly, we conclude that our disposition in this case must be controlled by Morgan and Sacks and that the Employer’s reliance upon Bentworth is misplaced, since the Claimant in Bentworth was proceeding on a reinstatement petition and failed to produce necessary medical testimony to establish that her existing disability was related to, and therefore was the result of, a recurrence of the prior work-related injury.
Order
Now, October 17,1985, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated October 11, 1984, No. A-84780, is reversed and the referee’s order for the payment of compensation is hereby reinstated, United Parcel Service, Employer and/or its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, to pay to Claimant , compensation for the period of disability from June 11,1981 to August 27,1981, with interest as provided in the Act, as well as payment to Claimant in reimbursement for medical and litigation charges as required under the Act.,
Act of .Tune 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended.
Claimant was actually disabled and failed to return to work until December 15, 1981.
In Bentworth, we held:
An injured employee seeking reinstatement of his benefits has the burden of proving the causal connection between his current condition and his prior work-related injury.
In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pecora), 82 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 538, 475 A.2d 972 (1984), we stated:
It has long been the rule in workmen’s compensation cases that the form of the petition filed is not controlling where the facts warrant relief, and that if a claimant is entitled to relief under any section of the Act, his petition will be considered as filed under that section. (Citation of cases omitted.)
Claimant’s testimony as to his injury on .Tune 11, 1981, includes the following:
Q. Now, what happened to you on June 11th?
A. I was working in another work area from the assigned work area.
Q. What area were you working?
A. I was working in the small sorting and I went to lift this hamper box — we had to dump this hamper box off the slide — and—
Q. What is a hamper box?
A. It is a big wide box, about half the size of this table here.
*298 Q. How much does it weigh?
A. It weighs 45 to 50 pounds.
Q. What did you have to do with it?
A. We had to dump the box, dump it to small, and it went through the slide, put them on the belt.
Q. During the course of doing this, what happened?
A. I felt a pain in my back.
Q. What part of your back?
A. The lower portion of my back.
Q. On your left side or your right side?
A. My right side.
Q. What did you do after you felt that pain?
A. I notified the supervisor.
Q. How bad was the pain?
A. The pain was terrible.
Q. On June 11th the pain you felt, was that in the same area that you had hurt on the two previous occasions that you have described?
A. Sort of.
Q. What do you mean by sort of?
A. Dike I am saying the pain shot up underneath my right shoulder blade.
Q. Was that the type of pain that you had on the two prior occasions?
A. No, not exactly. It would go to my legs and the lower portion of my back.