Karlberg v. Weber (Et Al.)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Karlberg v. Weber (Et Al.)

30 A.2d 208, 151 Pa. Super. 173, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 260

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 1, 1942

DocketAppeal, 114

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.2d 208 (Karlberg v. Weber (Et Al.)) 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

Karlberg v. Weber (Et Al.), 30 A.2d 208, 151 Pa. Super. 173, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 260 (Pa. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case was correctly decided by the court below in a compact, but adequate, opinion by' President Judge Finletter, reading as follows:

“Claimant was injured in the course of his employment by a fall from a ladder. His left arm and the right side of his head were affected. He was compensated for total disability under an agreement. Later he signed a final receipt indicating his ability to return to work. Later it was found that he was suffering from.a depressed fracture of the skull, which required an operation. Certain other injuries to the left arm developed. The final receipt was set aside by a referee. Later another referee sét aside a petition to modify. An order disallowing a petition to modify was made by a third referee. An appeal was then made to Workmen’s Compensation Board, which affirmed the action of the third referee.

“The burden to show that a change should be made on the orders of the Referee and Board was of course upon the defendant. Testimony was taken on behalf of each party. The defendant called an insurance carrier’s adjuster and a physician. Against this claimant called two physicians, one a gentleman who had attended claimant since May, 1940, and the other a doctor who had examined claimant. Both these experts were of opinion, and expressed themselves strongly, that there had been no decrease in disability. We are of *175 the opinion that t'he weight of the testimony was with the claimant, and that the Referee and Board, having ample foundation for their findings, were justified in making them.”

The judgment entered by the learned court below is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case was correctly decided by the court below in a compact, but adequate, opinion by' President Judge Finletter, reading as follows:

“Claimant was injured in the course of his employment by a fall from a ladder. His left arm and the right side of his head were affected. He was compensated for total disability under an agreement. Later he signed a final receipt indicating his ability to return to work. Later it was found that he was suffering from.a depressed fracture of the skull, which required an operation. Certain other injuries to the left arm developed. The final receipt was set aside by a referee. Later another referee sét aside a petition to modify. An order disallowing a petition to modify was made by a third referee. An appeal was then made to Workmen’s Compensation Board, which affirmed the action of the third referee.

“The burden to show that a change should be made on the orders of the Referee and Board was of course upon the defendant. Testimony was taken on behalf of each party. The defendant called an insurance carrier’s adjuster and a physician. Against this claimant called two physicians, one a gentleman who had attended claimant since May, 1940, and the other a doctor who had examined claimant. Both these experts were of opinion, and expressed themselves strongly, that there had been no decrease in disability. We are of *175 the opinion that t'he weight of the testimony was with the claimant, and that the Referee and Board, having ample foundation for their findings, were justified in making them.”

The judgment entered by the learned court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.2d 208, 151 Pa. Super. 173, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlberg-v-weber-et-al-pasuperct-1942.