Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingtestimonyaffidavit
testimony

Related Cases

Earle Equipment Co. v. Department of Treasury, Revenue Div., 136 Mich.App. 536, 358 N.W.2d 16
View Case »
Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Allison’s Estate, 69 N.J.Super. 514, 174 A.2d 631
View Case »
Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board of California, 527 U.S. 1068, 120 S.Ct. 10, 144 L.Ed.2d 842, 68 USLW 3176, 68 USLW 3177, 68 USLW 3008
View Case »
Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. v. Town of West Hartford, Not Reported in A.3d, 2015 WL 9920555
View Case »
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1, 86 L.Ed. 65
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Garman v. W.C.A.B. (AMP, Inc.), 75 Pa.Cmwlth. 607, 462 A.2d 945

Facts

The claimant had been receiving workmen's compensation benefits after suffering an injury in 1973. Four years later, the employer filed a petition to terminate these benefits, supported by a doctor's affidavit stating that the claimant's disability had ceased. After a hearing, the referee granted the petition, leading to an appeal by the claimant who argued that the evidence did not support the finding of no disability.

The claimant was injured in 1973 while lifting a heavy article. He suffered an acute strain in the lumbosacral and cervical area. He returned to work in 1975 on partial disability until 1976 when he returned to full disability.

Issue

Did the referee's finding that the claimant suffered no disability have substantial evidence to support it, and could benefits be suspended based on an affidavit from an out-of-state medical doctor?

The claimant principally argues that the referee's finding that his disability has finally ceased is not supported by substantial evidence and that, at the worst for him, the record supports an order only for a modification of the notice of compensation payable to one for partial disability.

Rule

The court applied the principle that substantial evidence must support a finding of no disability and that the definition of 'physician' in the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act is not limited to those licensed in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act contains numerous clear indications that when used in that Act the word physician is not meant to be limited to individuals licensed in Pennsylvania.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including the testimony of the employer's medical witness and lay witnesses, which contradicted the claimant's assertions of disability. The referee's acceptance of the employer's evidence over the claimant's testimony was deemed appropriate, leading to the conclusion that the claimant was not disabled. The court also noted that the Workmen's Compensation Act allows for the inclusion of out-of-state physicians in the evaluation of claims.

The referee believed the testimony of the employer's witnesses, rejected the claimant's testimony and specifically resolved the conflict in medical testimony in favor of the employer's medical witness.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of no disability and that the affidavit from the out-of-state doctor was valid.

Order affirmed.

Who won?

The employer prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the termination of the claimant's benefits based on the medical testimony and other evidence presented.

The employer presented three lay witnesses, neighbors and associates of the claimant, who testified concerning the claimant's attendance at football and basketball games and school board meetings.

You must be