From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hines v. W.C.A.B. et al

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 1982
440 A.2d 664 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1982)

Opinion

February 2, 1982.

Workmen's compensation — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736 — Burden of proof — Medical testimony.

1. Under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, the claimant has the burden of establishing the right to compensation and all elements necessary to support an award. [373]

2. In a workmen's compensation case where the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board takes no additional evidence, the referee is the ultimate fact-finder, and he is, as the judge of credibility, vested with broad discretion; he may accept or reject any witness's testimony, including that of a medical witness, in whole or in part. [373]

3. Rejection by a workmen's compensation referee of medical testimony does not, by itself, constitute capricious disregard of competent evidence. [373]

Submitted on briefs September 17, 1981, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges CRAIG and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1240 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Frank Hines v. Mack Trucks, Inc. and Esis, Inc., No. A-79893.

Application to the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Jeffrey B. Matzkin, for petitioner.

Robert A. Weinert, for respondent, Mack Trucks, Inc.


Frank Hines appeals from a Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board denial of benefits. We affirm.

Hines, allegedly injured at work, was discharged when he was unable to perform normal work assignments. The Board affirmed a referee's decision which concluded that Hines failed to connect his alleged injury to his employment through adequate medical evidence.

The claimant, under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, has the burden of establishing the right to compensation and all elements necessary to support an award. Halaski v. Hilton Hotel, 487 Pa. 313, 317, 409 A.2d 367, 369 (1979). Hines argues that he met his burden by presenting the testimony of two Board-certified physicians.

Act of June 20, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1.

Where the party fails to meet his burden of proof, our review is limited to determining whether or not findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the legal conclusions and if they can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence. Walsh v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 55 Pa. Commw. 288, 291, 422 A.2d 1247, 1249 (1980).

The referee is the ultimate fact-finder where the Board takes no additional evidence. Rowan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 58 Pa. Commw. 56, 61, 426 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1981). A referee, being the judge of credibility, is vested with broad discretion and may accept or reject any witness' testimony, including that of a medical witness, in whole or in part. Bowes v. Inter-Community Action, Inc., 49 Pa. Commw. 612, 618, 411 A.2d 1279, 1281 (1980). Thus, rejection of medical testimony does not, by itself, constitute capricious disregard of competent evidence. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Keller, 27 Pa. Commw. 263, 267, 366 A.2d 623, 625 (1976).

A review of the record demonstrates that neither physician was able to base his testimony on any adequate objective findings. The referee rejected the proffered medical testimony since it was based on subjective, rather than objective, evidence. Mindful of our narrow scope of review, we find no capricious disregard of competent evidence.

Hines offered the testimony of a Board-certified family practitioner who examined him the day after the accident. On cross-examination, however, the doctor testified that he could not say with reasonable medical certainty that the employee's alleged injury was caused by a work-related accident. The employee also offered the testimony of a Board-certified neurologist who testified that he could find no objective indications to support the employee's claimed injury.

Affirmed.

ORDER

The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board order No. A-79893, dated April 23, 1981, is affirmed.

Judge PALLADINO did not participate in the decision in this case.


Summaries of

Hines v. W.C.A.B. et al

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 1982
440 A.2d 664 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1982)
Case details for

Hines v. W.C.A.B. et al

Case Details

Full title:Frank Hines, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen's…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 2, 1982

Citations

440 A.2d 664 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1982)
440 A.2d 664

Citing Cases

Sloan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Mr. Wolf testified to the existence of several specific sedentary jobs that Claimant could perform while…

Petillo v. W.C.A.B

The referee has broad discretion to determine credibility and may accept or reject a medical witness'…