Opinion
December 16, 1966.
June 16, 1967.
Appeals — Final or interlocutory — Workmen's compensation — Order reversing decision of board and remanding record.
The Workmen's Compensation Board dismissed claimant's petition for reinstatement, concluding that he had forfeited all right to compensation by failing to accept defendant-employer's request to undergo a fifth hernia operation. The court below reversed and remanded for further hearing. In direct disregard of the court, the board failed to hold a further hearing or receive additional testimony, and then reinstated its original order. The court below again reversed and remanded the record to the board for further hearing and determination. Defendant-employer appealed.
It was Held that the order of the court below was clearly interlocutory, and the appeal was quashed.
Argued December 16, 1966.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.
Appeal, No. 869, Oct. T., 1966, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Jan. T., 1965, No. 59, in case of Marlin E. Beury v. Aluminum Company of America. Appeal quashed and record remanded.
Appeal by claimant from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board refusing petition for reinstatement.
Order entered reversing decision of board and remanding record, opinion by DALTON, J. Defendant appealed.
H.G. Stutzman, for appellant.
Joseph A. Zane, for appellee.
On October 22, 1964, the Workmen's Compensation Board dismissed claimant-appellee's petition for reinstatement, concluding that appellee had forfeited all right to compensation by failing to accept employer-appellant's request to undergo a fifth hernia operation within four years. On September 8, 1965, the court below reversed and remanded for further hearing.
In direct disregard of the court, the board failed to hold a further hearing or receive additional testimony, stating on January 6, 1966: "We will attempt to accommodate the Court where it is possible . . . Nor do we believe that remanding would produce any better evidence than we already have." The board then reinstated its original order.
On September 7, 1966, the court below again reversed with the order: "The record is remanded to the Board for further hearing and determination." This appeal followed.
The board's function is not "to accommodate the Court". Its refusal to follow the instructions of the lower court was capricious.
In its present state, the order of the court is clearly interlocutory.
Appeal quashed and record remanded to the board for further hearing consistent with the directive of the court below.