*1 experts totally All testified that claimant him. disabled fabricating symptoms. The malingering nor was neither symptoms only sought claimant treatment The instant present before the accident. which were Hurchick, supra. believe fours with case is on all attempted is un- distinction the Commonwealth Court’s disability re- is long subsequent warranted. As injury, the dis- for the initial negligent treatment sult of Compensa- ability compensable under the is Workmen’s tion Act. is reversed
Order Commonwealth Court Appeal Compensation Board order of Workmen’s reinstated. JJ., took POMEROY,
ROBERTS and
or decision of
case.
consideration
MORTGAGE GROUP. SONS, Appeal of A. J. DEMOR INC. Pennsylvania. Argued May 8, 1975. Decided Jan. *2 Polito, Balfe, Rose, Dixon, Michael A. W. Schmidt Leckey, Pittsburgh, appellant. Edward C. Pittsburgh, appellee. Rosenzweig, S. M. EAGEN, O’BRIEN, JONES, Justice,
Before Chief ROBERTS, NIX, POMEROY and JJ.
OPINION PER CURIAM. Mortgage Group CIM],
Appellant, I.C. [hereinafter mortgage April on action in foreclosure instituted an apparent when that construction became housing project interrupted of finan- because had been May parte proceed- cial in an ex difficulties. On ing, McGee, president Jr., as of Harrison Leonard develop- Square, Square], Inc. Harrison *3 [hereinafter president question of project er the in also as and Masonry Corporation, principal creditor McGee a appointment a re- petitioned Square, Harrison for the Square. for The Court Common ceiver Harrison Allegheny granted petition or- County the and Pleas of 5, 1974, hearing to determine that be held on June dered a appointment should made the the receiver be whether permanent Square be dis- should or whether Harrison hearings appellant in liquidated. After solved and appointment receiver, Decree the a a CIM contested receivership continuing July 1974, the 5, filed was financing to directing the to seek sufficient and receiver complete project. the subsequently the receiver
Pursuant to this direction permission con- to enter into a petitioned court for necessary com- securing allegedly to for tract funds given creditors that plete project.1 to all was Notice suit, only 47 of the 101 1. the time of the institution At they completed point where contemplated been to had units testimony further work occupied. also that be There was could required was on the tenantable units.
249 hearing an additional would held on Appellant, request. this A. Demor consider Son, represented at was Demor] Inc. [hereinafter objection proceeding this later but raised formal petition. hearing, At the conclusion of the Chan permitting cellor to enter issued a the receiver decree ap separate said contract. Both CIM and Demor filed ruling. appeals peals to this from that These argument purpose were then for of oral consolidated disposition. lodged parties appeal at Subsequently, No. to the Term, of their desire March notified this Court parties appeal. ac- discontinue their Since all that agreement prayer of tion have their expressed to the hereby we Petition for appeal, of that Discontinuance grant petition appeal be with- and direct that request parties the consent drawn at the with of this Court. ap remaining disposition
The matter peal Sons, Term of A. J. Demor Inc. at No. March pointed opinion out the fla- The in his (which grant in ef- was violations of our Rule 56 former appeal instituted) fect committed time this attempting perfect this suggested appropriate sanction should be that being waived.4 herein as treat the contentions raised agree that follow. *4 Appellate the Court Juris- this is on Jurisdiction in Court based
2. II, 233, § 31, 1970, 673, Act, July art. No. diction Act of P.L. 1976, July (1976) (suspended see 202(4), 211.202(4) § 17 P.S. 702(b). Pa.R.App.P. [appellant] and parties in are for CIM 3. The that action Trustees Square [appellee]. for Harrison the receiver of referring Appellant to a violation criticizes the 4. usurpation our a of a power. it as rule of this and characterizes hearing judge call should contrary, trial or the To particular- procedural of rules our all blatant violations attention orderly processing ly impeded has violation where the cause. provides Court Rule :5 upon entering appeal, appellant Forthwith his shall opposite party on or coun- serve notice thereof his stenographer sel; testimony, if on took the who transcript filed; the official thereof has not been also judge ruling any on entered or- any who made or judgment decree, complains der, or of which already appear rec- not of and reasons which do proof ord; promptly and shall file in the court below comply of A the service of such notices. failure promptly notice with this rule serve below, court with a statement matters concise alleged complained regarding of and which it is may appear record, con- reasons therefor not be do objections ruling, or- sidered as a waiver of all judgment receipt of der, question. or decree in On stenographer shall required, the notice here the official ap- proceed transcribed, forthwith his *5 upon notice belatedly appeal served hour to file the notify court ba neglected to it the Chancellor6 could premised, nor appeal upon was to sis of the record.7 from a review be ascertained evaluate the unable to result, As was presently We are of Demor which are before us. claims argument that by Demor impressed not with offered supply requirement of comply their to with the failure of” ing complained “a concise statement the matters raising they were consequence in essence was of no since objections the same rules as the Trustees CIM. Our promulgated anticipation parties are with the that all comply with in will their mandate. Demor effect Since upon answering objections relied our their by CIM, instituted Demor now the conse must bear quences of CIM’s decision to withdraw that action. designed rules appel
Our are to administer process pos late the fairest most manner efficient sible. question specifically pro The rule in was aimed viding hearing respond opportunity court with an complaint being to the by party instituting raised appeal. compliance prevented The lack of here having Court from benefit consideration of the hearing respect court with the claims raised the in litigant. stant We believe that under all the circum- 6. Under appellant required Court Rule to serve upon (10) notice the days within court ten after the issuance writ certiorari. only 7. The appearing relating position statement of record of Demor was hearing at the made close of the 16th which was as follows: ability “Our position respect to take with to this [a] [rule] dependent show upon cause is ap- details are that not parent wit], . . from the record ar- the basis for [to $450,000.00 riving construction, figure at the the arrange- ment with the architect his certifications reliability .... Under the state of the record at time, present arewe not to know whether we do able do ” object . . . absent those . . . . (empha- details added) sis fail- Demor’s treat appropriate to stances their all of a waiver comply with Rule ure *6 Ac- by the Chancellor. entered objections to the decree Sons, Inc. is dis- Demor appeal of A. cordingly, missed. party 1975, each appeal at No. 67
In the March Term March at No. 77 In the own costs. is to bear appellant, De- by the 1975, costs are be borne Term mor.
MANDERINO, took consideration J., in the decision this case. J., J., EAGEN,
JONES, concur result. C. dissenting POMEROY, JJ., filed a ROBERTS opinion. (dissenting). POMEROY, Justices
ROBERTS and majority’s the is- reach dissent from the refusal appointment of propriety the receiver. sue have notes proved filed, shall forthwith and the court below statement, file record least a brief form ruling, order, judg- opinion, an of the reasons for specify to, ment or decree therein referred or shall writing reasons place where such the record at- may found, opinion writing shall be printed thereof. tached to record and the decree en- file Demor waited to its from 1974. Notice until tered on 16th October until filing upon the Chancellor was not served clearly not days This was thereafter on November 6th. by prompt the rule. the court envisioned upon service state requires . concise rule also “. .a The complained regarding of the matters ment record, appear of do alleged therefor though the eleventh until Even Demor waited . ” July Appellate Procedure effective Replaced 5. Rule n