*1 A.2d 797 LEHIGH COUNTY VO-TECH SCHOOL
v. (WOLFE). APPEAL WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD Robert C. WOLFE. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Submitted March 1994. 6, 1995. Decided Jan. Reargument Denied March *3 Eidelman, Calnan, Co-Cn., Allentown, Edward R. Thomas for appellant. Hollenbach,
Barbara L. Philadelphia, for appellee. NIX, C.J., FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, Before and PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, CASTILLE, MONTEMURO, and JJ. THE
OPINION COURT OF PAPADAKOS, Justice. Wolfe, C. the Order Appellant, appeals
In this case Robert of the Work- reversing Commonwealth Court Order awarding him compensa- Compensation men’s tion benefits. Lehigh by Appellee, has
Appellant employed been School, Appel- as since 1973. vice-principal Vo-Tech County discipline of student responsibilities questions extend to lant’s attendance, and distur- including monitoring incidents and at bances the school. December, 1982, injured his back the course Appellant
In wall, he of a employment stepped slipped of his when off Pennsylvania fell. Pursuant to the Workmen’s. (the Act),1 compensation received workmen’s Appellant
Act injury. loss a result of this for a twelve-week work as benefits a second to August, Appellant sustained while engine when fell over an stand tripping back he after injury, car As a result of this engine. students move a helping seven weeks workmen’s Appellant received Receipt on executed a Final October benefits. had that he returned the effect which was concede had disability and that his ceased.2 work injured his at that he back Subsequently, Appellant claimed 29, 1989, moving boxes of files on June while he work Petition Appellant filed a Claim tools. On November as that he was disabled of June in which he asserted (codified §§ 1 et as amended at P.S. 1. Act of June P.L. seq.). *4 Act, provides: § of the 77 P.S. 2. Section 434 dependent to receipt, given employe an or entitled final [a] award, compensation compensation agreement notice or under a employer's the of the prima be facie evidence of termination shall liability agreement notice or award: pay compensation under such to however, Provided, may, designated by department a the That referee years payments have any within from the date which at time three made, petition the receipt, upon filed with set a final been aside motion, department’s be that department, on own if it shown or the disability injury in fact had not terminated. all due to the injury. Appellant due to the back also alleged injury that the was a recurrence of his previous injuries sustained 1982 and 24, 1990, January 1986. On Appellant filed a Petition to Set Aside the Final Receipt October that at asserting signing the time of the of the final receipt injury had not alternative, terminated. Appellant alleged that latest was a injury injury produced by new a new occurrence injured which his back which was predisposed damage due prior injuries. to his work-related Following several hearings, granted referee both of Appellant’s petitions and ordered payment benefits for the duration disability. of the In granting the Petition, Claim the referee found as a fact Appellant’s June occurred while was moving boxes of school records.
Appellee then appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation (Board) contending virtually all of the factual findings the referee were based upon insufficient evidence. The Board dismissed appeal and affirmed the so, referee’s decision. In doing the Board concluded that the referee had sufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Appellant had suffered an aggravation original injury of his June, 1989 and did not err by granting the claim petition. The Board also held that since the supports record a finding injury, a new alleged referee’s error in not differentiating between the claim petition petition and the to set aside the final receipt Finally, moot. the Board ruled that since the record supported finding of a injury, new no further inquiry into timeliness was required.
Appellee then filed a Petition for Review with the Common- wealth Court which reversed the decision of the Board and vacated the decision of the referee granting Appellant’s claim petition petition to set aside the final receipt and award of benefits. granted
We the appeal to address Appellant’s contention that, in reversing, applied Commonwealth Court an im-
327
of
analyzed
sufficiency
it
the
the
of review when
proper scope
we now reverse.
findings
referee’s
and
before,
review in
scope
of
As we have noted
determining
is limited to
matters
compensation
workmen’s
rights,
of constitutional
there has been a violation
whether
committed,
Board
Appeal
or a violation
errors of law
necessary findings
sup
of fact were
and
procedure,
whether
Company
St.
Container
by substantial evidence.
Joe
ported
(Staroschuck), 534
Appeal
v.
Board
Compensation
Workmen’s
(1993);
Compen
347,
Gumro v. Workmen’s
Pa.
A of the Workmen’s straightforward claimant, eligible Act in order to be reveals that a pensation require must two compensation, only for workmen’s establish 1) injury employ occurred in the course ments: 2) City v. Harrisburg it related thereto. ment and that was (Gebhart), 532 Pa. Appeal Board Compensation Workmen’s (1992); Philadelphia Krawchuk v. Elec. A.2d 1369 616 Co., injury an to a A.2d 627 Whether 497 Pa. 439 is in the course of claimant sustained workmen’s v. City Harrisburg is of law. question a employment (Gebhart), 532 Pa. Appeal Board Workmen’s Co., (1992); George H. Hohman v. A.2d 1369 616 Soffel (1946).3 31, 46 354 Pa. A.2d Act, 301(c) 411(1), provides following § of the 77 P.S. Section arising "personal injury,” "injury in the "injury,” and definitions of employment”: course of his act, "personal shall be "injury” injury,” as used in this terms The previous employe, regardless of his injury an to an construed mean condition, employment physical arising in the course of thereto, "injury arising course of his The in the ... term related Appellant basically argues that there-was sufficient evidence support Finding referee’s of Fact number 13 which concluded that Appellant’s injury at the work site in June of “new” and that he was entitled to benefits. Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth Court exceeded *6 in scope its of review analyzing sufficiency of the evidence question and that it by erred its substituting judgment for that of the referee as to agree. fact issues. We
Where the
Workmen’s
Appeal Board
has taken no additional testimony,
required
the Board is
accept facts found
if
by
they
the referee
are supported by
Mines,
competent evidence. Bethenergy
Inc. v. Workmen’s
Board (Skirpan), 531 Pa.
612 A.2d
(1992).
appeal
Board,
On
from a decision of the
the reviewing
court must view the
in
light
evidence
most favorable to the
below,
prevailing party
including the benefit of all inferences
See,
reasonably deduced from the evidence.
Harman Coal
Company
v. Dunmyre, 474 Pa.
Appellee argues presented that evidence was to the con- trary indicating that Appellant injured his back while at home employment,” as used in this ... injuries article shall include all ... employe actually engaged sustained while the is in the furtherance of his employer, upon business or affairs of the employer’s whether
premises or elsewhere.... employ- scope course and not while he was Appellee. ment with Lynch, testified Christopher Dr. G.
Appellant’s expert, day him visited on June Appellant before experi- incident, that he had been complaining work-related (Deposition since June pain severe back encing 10). also testified Lynch Dr. Lynch, p. Dr. June some routine work pain doing attributed this Appellant 4, 1990, p. Lynch, Dr. June (Deposition around his house. 15). addition, did not Lynch Dr. testified that time, (Depo- at indicate, that he hurt his back school. at that 19). 4, 1990, p. Lynch, sition of Dr. June Furthermore, into evidence the medical records submitted testimony Lynch. Appellant of Dr. corroborated the Valley Allentown-Lehigh at the July on hospitalized admission, Lynch Dr. record- At the time Hospital Center. “two increasing pain low back developed that Appellant ed (Repro- around the house. following routine work ago” weeks *7 35a). Also, included on Record, hospital therapist the p. duce her 17, 1989, that told July Appellant of her initial evaluation of his rug from a off pulling resulted problem that his back 36a). Record, p. (Reproduced deck. case in
The
role workmen’s
appellate
witnesses;
credibility
or review
reweigh
to
evidence
is not
or the
Board
rather,
the Workmen’s
whether,
consid
upon
simply
must
determine
reviewing court
whole,
have
findings
referee’s
as
eration of the evidence
deter
Credibility
in the record.
support
measure of
requisite
and
of the referee
province
exclusive
are within the
minations
arbitrary
only
they
if
are
can be overturned
findings of fact
Mines,
Com
Inc. v. Workmen’s
Bethenergy
capricious.
and
Pa.
612 A.2d
(Skirpan), 531
Appeal Board
pensation
(1992);
Corp. v. Workmen’s
Republic Steel
(1980).4
1,
There is no the referee acted arbitrarily assessing credibility and of the capriciously therefore, and, him findings witnesses before of fact are believe, right, The chose to as was his binding. simply referee Huffman and testimony Appellant gave the live and Susan to the of Dr. weight deposition testimony Lynch. Appel less believed, lant’s live if to testimony, competent is sufficient injured the referee’s his back support finding during employment the course of his on June Therefore, scope the Commonwealth Court exceeded its in substituting judgment credibility review its own as to the weight given Appellant’s testimony regarding be where his new occurred.5 Accordingly, the Order of Commonwealth Court is awarding reversed and the Order of the Board benefits is reinstated.
CASTILLE, J., a dissenting opinion. files MONTEMURO, J., is sitting designation. *8 CASTILLE, Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully majority’s dissent' from the reversal of the Commonwealth denying compensation Court’s order workmen appellant. benefits to executed a final receipt under issue, disposition 5. Because of our of this we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument injury proximate, additional that his new was the probable prior injury. natural and result of his work-related
331 (the Act),1 an which the Workmen’s Act action evidence of the termination of an prima serves as facie obligation pay compensation injuries for sus- employer’s Act. employee tained an under Section 434 of the provides receipt may 434 further that a final be set Section if disabling injury aside it can be shown that the relevant had not, fact, when the final was executed receipt terminated if receipt to set aside the final is filed within petition Here, if years. appel- three even one were to conclude and, injury injuries lant’s arose from his present previous therefore, terminated, injury that his had not his previous 24, final on petition receipt January to set aside the filed year not since it was the three timely beyond was filed requirement of the statute. final was not petition receipt
Since the set aside the filed, that he is timely appellant required is to demonstrate injury aggrava entitled to for an attributable to proof tion of a condition that he suffered pre-existing upon of and related to his employment. such the course (Con Porochniak v. Workmen’s America), 67 Pa.Commw. Corporation tainer This, do. was unable to appellant A.2d .Christopher Lynch, own medical Dr. G. Appellant’s expert, an present injury behalf that his appellant’s testified on problems unequivo- of his chronic back but he never extension pres- appellant’s a causal connection between cally established fact, Dr. alleged injury. and his work-related disability ent Lynch appel- Dr. examined Lynch just opposite. testified injury of June day appellant’s alleged lant on the before him recorded that told on appellant 1989. Dr. Wolfe’s notes performing condition was the result of June that his days chores around the house two earlier and that he routine since that time. experiencing pains had been severe back that he had hurt his Appellant did not at time indicate alleged since that during employment at school back. had to occur. disability yet incident seq. §§ P.L. 77 P.S. 1 et 1. Act of June *9 332 he was showing that medical records submitted Valley Lehigh the Allentown 1989 at July on
hospitalized that admission, recorded Lynch Dr. Hospital Upon Center. “two weeks pain low back increasing developed had appellant R.R. at 35a. his home. routine work around following ago” in her initial evaluation included hospital therapist The pulling from back resulted problem her that his appellant told R.R. at 36a. off his deck. rug own ex- by appellant’s offered the above evidence Despite hospital personnel, disinterested presumably and pert witness conveniently place, took that his testified appellant moving was boxes while he at work on June enough, corroborated testi- allegation This and tools. files co-worker. mony appellant’s from above, reversed the the Commonwealth Court light of the Board Appeal Compensation and the Workmen’s referee The for benefits. appellant’s petition granted which had scope that this Court’s correctly states majority opinion matters is limited to deter in review workmen’s of constitutional has a violation whether there been mining committed, Board Appeal violations of errors of law rights, sup of fact were necessary findings or whether procedures Company Joe Container substantial evidence. St. ported by (Staroschuck), 534 Board Compensation v. Workmen’s 128, 130 Generally, n. n. 633 A.2d 3 Pa. reweigh is not to in these matters court’s role appellate Bethenergy witnesses. credibility evidence or to review (Skir Mines, Inc. v. Workmen’s (1992). However, A.2d 531 Pa. pan), determinations are within exclusive though credibility even if referee, can findings of fact be overturned province of the Id. arbitrary capricious. and they are clearly in this matter is the referee’s decision Accordingly, in face of irrefuted evidence arbitrary capricious employ- in the course of his injury did not occur appellant’s in the referee appellant, In order to find favor of ment. depositions totally ignore testimony below had contemporaneous appellant gave to whom unbiased witnesses statements that his injury occurred his home doing while routine chores. Most tellingly, the referee had to ignore appellant’s expert own medical and his notes taken the day alleged injury. before
The Workmen’s Act is remedial in nature and is intended to benefit workers. This Court has the past *10 liberally construed the Act order to effectuate its humani- objectives. tarian Peterson v. Workmen’s Ap- (PRN peal Nursing Agency), 528 Pa. 597 A.2d However, workmen’s compensation should not be general disability construed as a policy insurance covers household injuries. accidents and The majority opinion does this.
I would affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court this matter.
v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD. Appeal of PAPERBOARD READING CORPORATION.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 1994.
Decided Jan.