Karlick v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Karlick v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

89 Pa. Super. 396, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 81

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 25, 1926

DocketAppeal 152

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 Pa. Super. 396 (Karlick v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron 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

Karlick v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 89 Pa. Super. 396, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 81 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The appellee sustained an injury to his left eye while mining coal and the referee found:

“That a large corneal opacity resulting from the injury.......covers nearly 2/3 of the lower portion of the pupilary area of his left or injured eye.

That as a result of this corneal scar claimant has no direct vision in his left eye.

That by bending his head downward and peering over the corneal opacity, claimant has 20/70 vision in his left eye, which can be corrected under like conditions with a lens to 20/40, ’ ’

and that as a result of such injury he has lost the use of his left eye. The Compensation Board approved of this finding and on appeal the Court of Common Pleas sustained the action of the Board. There was some contradiction in the medical evidence introduced but that presented by the claimant supports the finding of the referee. It is true that there is some vision in the injured eye but it is not direct because of the scar on the lower half of the pupil. It appears from the testimony without contradiction that in order to have any available vision in that eye it is necessary for the claimant to bend his head down and look upward, in doing which the right eye is necessarily affected by a loss of its muscular balance. The condition as described by the claimant’s witness supports the finding that for industrial purposes the claimant has lost the use of his eye. Although vision may remain to a slight degree the injured person may be entitled to compensation as if there were a total blindness of the eye: Androlonis v. Philadelphia & Eeading C. &. I. Co., 280 Pa. 71; Quinn v. American Interna *398 tional Ship Building Corp., 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 304; Massett v. Armerford Coal M. Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 583. We do not regard the cases cited by the appellant as inconsistent with the decision of the court below. The assignment is overruled and the judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The appellee sustained an injury to his left eye while mining coal and the referee found:

“That a large corneal opacity resulting from the injury.......covers nearly 2/3 of the lower portion of the pupilary area of his left or injured eye.

That as a result of this corneal scar claimant has no direct vision in his left eye.

That by bending his head downward and peering over the corneal opacity, claimant has 20/70 vision in his left eye, which can be corrected under like conditions with a lens to 20/40, ’ ’

and that as a result of such injury he has lost the use of his left eye. The Compensation Board approved of this finding and on appeal the Court of Common Pleas sustained the action of the Board. There was some contradiction in the medical evidence introduced but that presented by the claimant supports the finding of the referee. It is true that there is some vision in the injured eye but it is not direct because of the scar on the lower half of the pupil. It appears from the testimony without contradiction that in order to have any available vision in that eye it is necessary for the claimant to bend his head down and look upward, in doing which the right eye is necessarily affected by a loss of its muscular balance. The condition as described by the claimant’s witness supports the finding that for industrial purposes the claimant has lost the use of his eye. Although vision may remain to a slight degree the injured person may be entitled to compensation as if there were a total blindness of the eye: Androlonis v. Philadelphia & Eeading C. &. I. Co., 280 Pa. 71; Quinn v. American Interna *398 tional Ship Building Corp., 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 304; Massett v. Armerford Coal M. Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 583. We do not regard the cases cited by the appellant as inconsistent with the decision of the court below. The assignment is overruled and the judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Pa. Super. 396, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlick-v-philadelphia-reading-coal-iron-co-pasuperct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack