Pioneer Engineering Co. v. Cardillo

E.D. Pennsylvania

Pioneer Engineering Co. v. Cardillo

71 F. Supp. 866, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2610

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 15, 1947

DocketCivil Action No. 6041

StatusPublished

This text of 71 F. Supp. 866 (Pioneer Engineering Co. v. Cardillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pioneer Engineering Co. v. Cardillo, 71 F. Supp. 866, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2610 (E.D. Pa. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

BARD, District Judge.

In considering the present motion to dismiss, the complaint, it is not the function of this Court to re-weigh the evidence which was presented to the Deputy Commissioner at the hearing held on March 12, 1946. The sole question presently before the Court is, was there substantial evidence upon which the Deputy Commissioner could base the findings which he made? Southern S. S. Co. v. Norton, 3 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 825; McCarthy Stevedoring Corporation v. Norton, D.C.E.D.Pa., 46 F.Supp. 26; Bernatowicz v. Nacirema Operating Co., 3 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 385; Oldman Boiler Works v. McManigal, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 1944, 58 F.Supp. 697. The question is not whether on the evidence presented I would have arrived at the same conclusion as did the Deputy Commissioner.

After examining the record of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in this matter, I am of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. The amount of wages received by the claimant subsequent to the date of his injury is not conclusive as to his wage earning capacity. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Norton, 3 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 764; Burley Welding Works v. Lawson, 5 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 964; Twin Harbor Stevedoring & Tug Co. v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 513; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 163, 85 F.2d 420.

The complaint must be dismissed.

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

BARD, District Judge.

In considering the present motion to dismiss, the complaint, it is not the function of this Court to re-weigh the evidence which was presented to the Deputy Commissioner at the hearing held on March 12, 1946. The sole question presently before the Court is, was there substantial evidence upon which the Deputy Commissioner could base the findings which he made? Southern S. S. Co. v. Norton, 3 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 825; McCarthy Stevedoring Corporation v. Norton, D.C.E.D.Pa., 46 F.Supp. 26; Bernatowicz v. Nacirema Operating Co., 3 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 385; Oldman Boiler Works v. McManigal, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 1944, 58 F.Supp. 697. The question is not whether on the evidence presented I would have arrived at the same conclusion as did the Deputy Commissioner.

After examining the record of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in this matter, I am of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. The amount of wages received by the claimant subsequent to the date of his injury is not conclusive as to his wage earning capacity. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Norton, 3 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 764; Burley Welding Works v. Lawson, 5 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 964; Twin Harbor Stevedoring & Tug Co. v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 513; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 163, 85 F.2d 420.

The complaint must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. Supp. 866, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-engineering-co-v-cardillo-paed-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack