34 Pa. Code § 111.14
The provisions of this § 111.14 amended under sections 401.1, 435(a) and (c) and 1608 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (77 P.S. § § 710, 991(a) and (c) and 2708); section 2205 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 565); and section 414 of The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act (77 P.S. § 1514).
The provisions of this § 111.14 adopted January 1, 1970; amended April 7, 1989, effective April 8, 1989, 19 Pa.B. 1631; amended December 6, 2002, effective December 7, 2002, 32 Pa.B. 6043; amended December 19, 2014, effective December 20, 2014, 44 Pa.B. 7837. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (337205) to (337206).
Entitlement to Benefits
Although claimant did not prove entitlement to benefits under section cited in his petition, and even though claimant did not amend his petition, Board should not have ignored referee’s finding that claimant qualified under different section of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Long v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 505 A.2d 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Exceptions
Where employer had denied receipt of notice of worker’s injury in answer to worker’s claim petition, had examined worker on notice issue before referee and desired to pursue this issue on appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, employer should have included issue in its exceptions to the referee’s decisions under 34 Pa. Code § 111.14(a). Vare Brothers v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 496 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
A letter to a referee does not constitute an appeal to the Board if it is not addressed to the Board and does not state specific exceptions to the decision of the referee. McBride Transportation Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 413 A.2d 470 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Issue
Although petitioner did not mention the issue of credit for nonservice connected disability pension payments in the statement which followed the list of challenged conclusions of law, the issue was not waived because Petitioner included the issue in that list. Hildebrand v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 532 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
If the referees and the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board observe the claimant’s scars and the scars themselves indicate permanent disfigurement, medical evidence need not be adduced to establish the permanence of the disfigurement unless the permanence of the scars is put in issue. Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 398 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979); affirmed 100 S. Ct. 2432 (U. S. 1980).
Reception of Evidence
When the claimant, who was disfigured, appealed the referee’s findings to the Board which increased the award after viewing the disfigurement the reception of evidence by the Board was proper as an exception to the general rule that where the referee’s findings are supported by competent evidence the Board has no power to take additional evidence or to disturb the referee’s findings. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 360 A.2d 854 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).
Timeliness
Section 423 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (77 P. S. § 853) should be read in conjunction with this section to require a statement of specific grounds upon which appeal is taken, and Board, therefore, erred by considering issue raised beyond 20-day period set forth in section 423. Fiorentino v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 571 A.2d 554 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
This section cited in 34 Pa. Code § 111.15 (relating to no other pleadings allowed).