Czechoslovak Consulate v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Czechoslovak Consulate v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.

13 A.2d 116, 140 Pa. Super. 74, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 419

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 8, 1940

DocketAppeal, 148

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.2d 116 (Czechoslovak Consulate v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Czechoslovak Consulate v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., 13 A.2d 116, 140 Pa. Super. 74, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 419 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are not satisfied that the action of the board in reversing the findings of fact of the referee, and in holding that the competent and credible evidence in the record failed to establish that the claimant, the alien, non-resident widow of the deceased employee, was “actually dependent upon him for support,” at the time of his death, within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is without substantial support in the record. The evidence adduced on her behalf was not only meager and inconclusive, but also to some extent contradictory and inconsistent with her prior declarations, and the board, the ultimate fact finding body, was not required to accept it as establishing her claim.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We are not satisfied that the action of the board in reversing the findings of fact of the referee, and in holding that the competent and credible evidence in the record failed to establish that the claimant, the alien, non-resident widow of the deceased employee, was “actually dependent upon him for support,” at the time of his death, within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is without substantial support in the record. The evidence adduced on her behalf was not only meager and inconclusive, but also to some extent contradictory and inconsistent with her prior declarations, and the board, the ultimate fact finding body, was not required to accept it as establishing her claim.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 116, 140 Pa. Super. 74, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czechoslovak-consulate-v-rochester-pittsburgh-coal-co-pasuperct-1940.