17 Pa. Commw. 59 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1975
Opinion by
Balbino Garcia (claimant) was employed by Royal Factories, Inc. (employer) in Philadelphia as a laborer,
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or any necessary finding of fact by the Board was unsupported by substantial evidence. Arnold Coal & Supply Co., Inc. v. Markle, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 107, 300 A. 2d 916 (1973).
The claimant argues that the employer should have filed a petition to terminate instead of a petition for rehearing. The law, however, is well settled that strictness of pleading in workmen’s compensation cases is not required, and a petition presented under an improper section will be deemed to have been presented under the proper section. Lako v. Schlessinger, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 85, 220 A. 2d 665 (1966). In Mazzaccaro v. Jermyn-Green Coal Company, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 618, 86 A. 2d 828 (1944), where the factual situation was almost identical to that of this case, the court held that the Board erred in denying a petition for rehearing. In doing so the court reasoned:
“And when a tribunal has its attention called, prior to its adjudication, to an alteration of facts which, if disregarded, would lead it into error, the interests of justice require it to avoid the error, not stubbornly to commit it, and relegate the injured party to some procedure designed to correct the error after it is made.” 154 Pa. Superior Ct. at 622, 36 A. 2d at 829.
The court in Mazzaccaro, supra, also indicated that neither a petition for termination under Section 413,
Our conclusion that the Board should have granted a rehearing obviously renders it impossible for us to determine whether or not the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The record, as it presently stands, is simply incomplete.
We, therefore, reverse the order of the lower court and remand the record to the Workmen’s Compensation Board with the instruction that the requested rehearing be granted.
. Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2; 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §772.
. Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §871.
. Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §854.
. The Board’s decision in this case was issued prior to the effective date of the 1972 amendments to Section 423 and we need not consider here what, if any, effect those amendments may have upon the appropriateness of proceeding under that section in a case such as this one.