Opinion by
Yellow Cab Company appeals from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) awarding Roland Sisco (claimant) compensation for a total disability allegedly resulting from an automobile accident. We remand for a computation of benefits based on a partial disability.
Claimant was employed by Yellow Cab as a driver. On July 24, 1972, while in the course of his employment, claimant was struck from behind by another vehicle and was thеreupon thrown backward and forward, striking his head against the windshield. Al
On August 29, 1972, claimant was taken into surgery where two holes were made in his cranium to drain the hematoma. Claimant’s recovery was generally good, but he continued to experience periodic dizziness and occasional lapses of memory. He was therefore advised by Dr. Richter not to resume his job аs a cab driver. Claimant has followed this advice and has not attempted to secure any other type of employment.
Hearings on claimant’s clаim petition were held before a referee. Medical evidence consisted of hospital reports, two letters from Dr.. Richter to claimant’s аttorney, and the deposition of a Dr. Robert A. Groff, neurosurgeon who had examined the claimant at the request of Yellow Cab. It was stipulated by the partiеs that, if called to testify in person, Drs. Richter and Groff would testify in accordance with the letters and the deposition. Other evidence received by the referee included the testimony of the claimant and the testimony of Mr. Paul Stevens, the owner of a private employment agency, concerning the аvailability of jobs to one with the claimant’s qualifications. At the close of the evidence, the referee found that claimant was totally disabled as a result of the accident on July 24, 1972. This finding
Yellow Cab first contends that the medical evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that claimant’s subdural hematoma was caused by the accident on July 24, 1972.
Howevеr, we believe that this case comes within the rule that, where a claimant’s injuries are immediately and directly, or naturally and probably, the result of an accident, the fact-finder is not required to depend upon medical testimony alone, or at all, to find the causal connection. See, e.g., Workmen’s Cоmpensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corp.,
The same is true of the claimant’s disability in this ease. He was in an accident in which he suffered a head injury. He immediately began to experience dizziness and headaches which persisted until, one month later, he blacked out and surgery was determined to be necessary to drain the hematoma in his head. Undеr these circumstances, unequivocal medical testimony is not necessary to establish what is apparent from the chain of events, and we agreе with the Board that the claimant is entitled to compensation.
We cannot agree, however, that the .evidence established a total disability. It is cоnceded by all parties that claimant can no longer drive a cab and that the burden is therefore upon Yellow Cab to demon
In this case, the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Stevens, thе owner of the employment agency, was that positions as messengers, mailroom clerks, store clerks, and self-service parking lot attendants were available to one with the claimant’s qualifications. The unrebutted opinion of Dr. Groff was that claimant was capable of performing work of this naturе despite the residual periodic dizziness and the occasional lapses of memory. Finally, claimant’s own testimony was that he had not even attemрted to secure any position other than as a cab driver. This evidence was such as one could not reasonably ignore in reaching a conclusion. As we said in Chamberlain Corp. v. Pastellak,
[w] e think that when an employer presents evidence of available work which the medical testimony indicates the claimant should be able to perform, this is sufficient absent a showing that claimant cannot, in fact, perform the work due to his physical disability, or that he was not qualified in other respects for the employment, or even that he had applied and been rejected.
The order in this case must therefore be reversed and the eаse remanded for a recomputation of benefits based on a partial disability.
Now, this 28th day of August, 1978, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board awarding total disability benefits to Boland Sisco is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for a recomputation by the Board of benefits duе Boland Sisco for his partial disability.
Notes
It is undisputed that the dizziness and lapses of memory from which the claimant now suffers are residual effects of the hematoma.
In a letter to Yellow Cab’s attorney written prior to the taking of his deposition, Dr. Groff stated, “I don’t think there is any question that the accident . . . was the responsiblе trauma for the development of his subdural hematoma. . . .” Unlike Dr. Richter’s letters and Dr. Groff’s deposition, this letter was not the subject of a stipulation by the parties as to its admissibility, but it was nevertheless admitted into evidence by the referee. As hearsay, this letter is not in itself competent to sustain the finding of a causal connection. See, e.g., Cody v. S.K.F. Industries, Inc.,