49 A.2d 870 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1946
Argued December 10, 1946. Claimant, in this workmen's compensation case, has appealed from the action of the court below dismissing *52 an appeal from the order of the compensation authorities disallowing compensation.
The petition which was filed under the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended,
Section 501 (e) of the Act, as amended,
"Where the decision of the board is against the party having the burden of proof — in this case, the claimant — bearing in mind that a trier of fact is not required to accept even uncontradicted testimony as true (District of Columbia's Appeal,
"Where the board refuses compensation to a claimant, a considerable burden is placed upon such claimant seeking to set aside the findings of fact on appeal. The reasons for this are clear. The board is not required to award compensation even where the defendant has presented no evidence; it could conclude that claimant has not met the burden of proof, or that his witnesses are not credible, and are not worthy of belief even though uncontradicted." Jaloneck v. Jarecki Mfg. Co.,
There is a final matter which is academic in the circumstances of this case but nevertheless deserving of observation. A claimant need not, as the board has stated in its opinion, proveconclusively the elements *54 essential to a recovery. In civil proceedings the criterion for the trier is the probability of the ultimate fact to be proved. The claimant, however, has suffered no injury from what appears to have been too exacting a burden of proof for the board specifically accepted the testimony of defendant's medical experts to the effect that claimant's disability was not due to silicosis but to some undiagnosed condition.
Appeal dismissed.