From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Bulletin Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 26, 1933
168 A. 777 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

Summary

In Morris v. Bulletin Co., 110 Pa. Super. 377, 168 A. 777, we used what was, perhaps, an unfortunate illustration in construing section 5 of the Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, amending section 410 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended on June 26, 1919, P.L. 642. If confined to the facts of that particular case, it was all right, and a reference to what was actually done, on the return of the record in that case, would perhaps have made it more clear.

Summary of this case from Petrulo v. M. O'Herron Co.

Opinion

October 5, 1933.

October 26, 1933.

Workmen's compensation — Employee — Injury — Award — Appeal — Unsuccessful appeal — Compensation — Interest — Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, Sec. 5.

Under the Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, Sec. 5, if an appeal is taken by the employer or insurance carrier from an award of compensation, thus delaying or postponing the instalments of weekly compensation, and the appeal is unsuccessful, the claimant is entitled to receive, at the time of the first payment made on the award, not only the accumulated unpaid instalments of compensation then due and payable, but also interest at six per cent on the respective instalments from the time they would have been paid if the appeal had not been taken.

Appeal No. 217, October T., 1933, by defendant from judgment of C.P., No. 2, Philadelphia County, March T., 1933, No. 666, in the case of Joseph Morris v. Bulletin Company and Maryland Casualty Company, Insurance Carrier.

Before KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.

Appeal from award of compensation by Workmen's Compensation Board. Before STERN, P.J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the lower court:

"Whatever may be our opinion in regard to the conclusion reached by the Workmen's Compensation Board as to the facts of this case, we are, of course, bound by the findings of fact made by the board if there is any evidence to support such findings. We think that the testimony justified a finding that an accident did occur to the claimant on March 12, 1930, in that on that date, while he was engaged in work repairing a truck, there was no ventilation in the garage and the motors of several automobiles near by were running, with the natural accompanying discharge of carbon monoxide gas; the claimant became suddenly acutely ill, and the medical testimony was to the effect that he was suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. It is true that he had been so suffering previous to this particular occurrence, but it was testified that his condition was aggravated by the inhalation of the gas on the particular occasion in question. In short, we think the evidence sufficient to find that, under the conditions above stated, there was an accident in that the claimant inhaled a quantity of gas at a particular and definite time, that it made him immediately ill, and that it aggravated a previously existing condition due to a prior attack.

"For these reasons the court is of opinion that the award of the Workmen's Compensation Board should be affirmed. Accordingly the defendants' exceptions are overruled and judgment is entered in favor of the claimant and against the defendants in the sum of $1,005 with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of compensation due at the time the first payment is actually made, and also in the additional sum of $63 covering the items of medical attention, hospital bill and medicine."

The court dismissed the appeal and entered judgment for the claimant. Bulletin Company appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the entry of judgment.

Louis Wagner, and with him Richard A. Smith and Thomas J. Clary, for appellant. Leon Glazer, and with him Louis Wolfe Schlisman, for appellee.


Argued October 5, 1933.


The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned court below.

Appellant asks for an interpretation of that clause of the Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, sec. 5, which provides: "Whenever any claim for compensation . . . . . . is finally adjudicated in favor of the claimant, the amounts of compensation actually due at the time the first payment is made after such adjudication, shall bear interest at the rate of six per centum per annum." We think the meaning is sufficiently clearly expressed. If an appeal is taken by the employer or insurance carrier from an award of compensation, thus delaying or postponing the instalments of weekly compensation, and the appeal is unsuccessful, the claimant shall be entitled to receive, at the time of the first payment made on the award, not only the accumulated unpaid instalments of compensation then due and payable, but also interest at six per cent on the respective instalments from the time they would have been paid if the appeal had not been taken. The effect of the Act is to put the claimant, when his right to compensation is finally adjudicated in his favor, after appeal, in the same position as if no appeal had been taken, considering interest at six per cent equivalent to the loss of the use of the money.


Summaries of

Morris v. Bulletin Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 26, 1933
168 A. 777 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

In Morris v. Bulletin Co., 110 Pa. Super. 377, 168 A. 777, we used what was, perhaps, an unfortunate illustration in construing section 5 of the Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, amending section 410 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended on June 26, 1919, P.L. 642. If confined to the facts of that particular case, it was all right, and a reference to what was actually done, on the return of the record in that case, would perhaps have made it more clear.

Summary of this case from Petrulo v. M. O'Herron Co.
Case details for

Morris v. Bulletin Co.

Case Details

Full title:Morris v. Bulletin Co., a Corp., Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 26, 1933

Citations

168 A. 777 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
168 A. 777

Citing Cases

Tobler v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

Section 5 of the Act of April 23, 1927, P.L. 186, effective immediately, provided: “Whenever any claim for…

Petrulo v. M. O'Herron Co.

We think it was merely a slip for `computed', and that simple interest, only, was added, but this…