Masci v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

451 A.2d 1056, 69 Pa. Commw. 535, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1668
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 4, 1982
DocketAppeal, No. 1779 C.D. 1981
StatusPublished

This text of 451 A.2d 1056 (Masci v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board) 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
Masci v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 451 A.2d 1056, 69 Pa. Commw. 535, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1668 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Claimant Pierino Masci appeals from a June 23, 1981 order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed the referee’s decision in favor of employer Harmar Coal Company, terminating compensation being paid to claimant for total disability [536]*536under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act.1

The claimant suffered a work-related injury to his neck and back on March 10, 1976, and received workmen’s . compensation benefits. The employer filed a petition for termination on June 3, 1977. The referee concluded that all disability from the injury had ended by March 18, 1977. The board affirmed.

The claimant contends that no substantial evidence supported the referee’s decision to terminate the claimant’s benefits because three medical experts reported that claimant was still disabled and only employer’s single medical expert maintained the disability had ceased.

In Modern Transfer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 592, 597, 408 A.2d 900, 902 (1979), we held that, “the weighing of the testimony is solely within the province of the referee and his decision to accept the testimony of one competent medical witness over another will not be disturbed on appeal.” In deciding against the claimant, the referee relied upon the deposition testimony of Dr. Botkin, the employer’s witness, which the referee specifically found as a matter of fact to be the more credible testimony.

Claimant does not contest Dr. Botkin’s qualifications. Therefore, we cannot find that the referee’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence.

[537]*537Order

Now, November 4, 1982, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-80311, dated June 23, 1981, is affirmed, and claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Modern Transfer v. Commonwealth
408 A.2d 900 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 A.2d 1056, 69 Pa. Commw. 535, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masci-v-workmens-compensation-appeal-board-pacommwct-1982.