72 Pa. Commw. 500 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
This is an appeal by Yellow Freight System, Inc. (Yellow Freight) from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of a referee to set aside a final receipt and grant an award of compensation benefits to Roy McGill (Claimant).
On March 4, 1977, Claimant suffered an acute lumbosacral disc extrusion while working for Yellow Freight as a casual employee. As a result thereof, Claimant received compensation benefits from that date until May 16, 1977, when a final receipt was exe
Before this Court, Yellow Freight raises two arguments. First, it contends that the referee’s finding of fact that Claimant’s disability had not terminated as of the signing of the final receipt is not supported by
In a workmen’s compensation case where the party with the burden of proof prevailed below, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, ian error of law was committed or findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. Colt Industries v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 51 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 354, 414 A.2d 439 (1980).
Concerning the first issue, we note that a claimant who seeks to set aside a final receipt must present clear 'and convincing evidence that all liability due to the injury in fact had not terminated at the time final receipt was ,signed. Kerchner v. Materials Transport Service, Inc., 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 589, 372 A.2d 51 (1977). Claimant, as the party who prevailed below, is entitled to the benefit of the most favorable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Thomas V. Ferrick, Inc., 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 591, 353 A.2d 490 (1976). Following our thorough review of the record, we are convinced that the testimony concerning Claimant ’s need to wear a supportive corset, in conjunction with the treating physician’s statements, constitutes clear and convincing evidence that the disability had not terminated.
With regard to the second issue raised by Yellow Freight, we note that where there is no obvious causal relationship between a claimant’s subsequent injury and the original work incident, the medical testimony must unequivocally establish that the injury in question did arise from the assigned cause. American Refrigerator Equipment Co. v. Workmen’s Compensa
Mr. Roy McGill aggravated a low hack pain syndome which had been [a] pre-existing condition from a prior injury occurring at Yellow Freight Co.
and:
It is my personal feeling that' this gentleman sustained an original injury in November of 1977 while he was employed by the Yellow Freight Company....
... I feel that this was a legitimate recurrence of his original injury in these other two incidents.
Since the referee’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and the necessary causal relationship is established by unequivocal medical testimony, the order of the Board is affirmed.
Order
Now, March 10, 1983, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board at number A-78551, dated April 23,1981, is hereby affirmed.