Connelly v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Connelly v. Commonwealth

399 A.2d 817, 41 Pa. Commw. 485, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1406

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 4, 1979

DocketAppeal, No. 425 C.D. 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 399 A.2d 817 (Connelly v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connelly v. Commonwealth, 399 A.2d 817, 41 Pa. Commw. 485, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1406 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The appellant, Rose A. Connelly, appeals here from a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) granting her benefits for a limited period of time but finding that her disability had terminated on February 24, 1976 and cutting off benefits as of that date.

The appellant argues that the finding of fact by the referee as affirmed by the Board that her disability had terminated is not supported by substantial evidence. The record, however, contains a physician’s report which stated, “I do not think that this woman has any disability at this time.” This unequivocal statement supplies the requisite evidence to support the findings, even though medical evidence to the contrary was also introduced. It is for the fact-finder to resolve such conflicts and determine which evidence to accept as credible, not for this Court. City of Johnstown v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 464, 381 A.2d 1355 (1978); DiCamillo v. City of Philadelphia, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 402, 328 A.2d 223 (1974).

We must, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.

Order

And Now, this 4th day of April, 1979, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The appellant, Rose A. Connelly, appeals here from a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) granting her benefits for a limited period of time but finding that her disability had terminated on February 24, 1976 and cutting off benefits as of that date.

The appellant argues that the finding of fact by the referee as affirmed by the Board that her disability had terminated is not supported by substantial evidence. The record, however, contains a physician’s report which stated, “I do not think that this woman has any disability at this time.” This unequivocal statement supplies the requisite evidence to support the findings, even though medical evidence to the contrary was also introduced. It is for the fact-finder to resolve such conflicts and determine which evidence to accept as credible, not for this Court. City of Johnstown v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 464, 381 A.2d 1355 (1978); DiCamillo v. City of Philadelphia, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 402, 328 A.2d 223 (1974).

We must, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.

Order

And Now, this 4th day of April, 1979, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 A.2d 817, 41 Pa. Commw. 485, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connelly-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack