Senchak v. Tech Food Products Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Senchak v. Tech Food Products Co.

31 A.2d 746, 152 Pa. Super. 247, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 177

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 14, 1943

DocketAppeal, 98

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 A.2d 746 (Senchak v. Tech Food Products 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

Senchak v. Tech Food Products Co., 31 A.2d 746, 152 Pa. Super. 247, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 177 (Pa. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per. Curiam,

In this workmen’s compensation case the learned court below affirmed the board in disallowing a claim for compensation made by the widow of Joseph Payne.

The claimant alleged that the death of her former husband on 'September 8, 1938, was due to overexertion on the previous day when in the course of his employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the referee, which were affirmed by the board, that there were no unusual circumstances attending the performance of decedent’s work which constituted an accident; that death was due to natural causes. The cause of death was a coronary occlusion and there was medical testimony, although contradicted, that the occlusion was the natural progress of the heart disease from which the decedent had suffered.

There was no proof that the character of decedent’s work was “unusual” in the sense necessary to establish the occurrence of a compensable accident. Decedent was doing his customary form of work, notwithstanding he went up and down a ladder a number of times the day he had a heart attack, and there was nothing to warrant the conclusion that there was some unexpected occurrence. See Royko v. Logan Coal Co. et al., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 449, 458, 22 A. 2d 434; Hamer v. Rishel, 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 585, 587, 24 A. 2d 664. Mere proof of disability overtaking one at work is insufficient to establish an accident: Good v. Penna. Dept. of Property & Supplies et al., 346 Pa. 151, 154, 155, 30 A. 2d 434.

The board’s findings, having been based upon sufficient evidence, are conclusive. It is beyond our province. to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony: Thomas v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 161, 165, 25 A. 2d 98.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

Per. Curiam,

In this workmen’s compensation case the learned court below affirmed the board in disallowing a claim for compensation made by the widow of Joseph Payne.

The claimant alleged that the death of her former husband on 'September 8, 1938, was due to overexertion on the previous day when in the course of his employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the referee, which were affirmed by the board, that there were no unusual circumstances attending the performance of decedent’s work which constituted an accident; that death was due to natural causes. The cause of death was a coronary occlusion and there was medical testimony, although contradicted, that the occlusion was the natural progress of the heart disease from which the decedent had suffered.

There was no proof that the character of decedent’s work was “unusual” in the sense necessary to establish the occurrence of a compensable accident. Decedent was doing his customary form of work, notwithstanding he went up and down a ladder a number of times the day he had a heart attack, and there was nothing to warrant the conclusion that there was some unexpected occurrence. See Royko v. Logan Coal Co. et al., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 449, 458, 22 A. 2d 434; Hamer v. Rishel, 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 585, 587, 24 A. 2d 664. Mere proof of disability overtaking one at work is insufficient to establish an accident: Good v. Penna. Dept. of Property & Supplies et al., 346 Pa. 151, 154, 155, 30 A. 2d 434.

The board’s findings, having been based upon sufficient evidence, are conclusive. It is beyond our province. to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony: Thomas v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 161, 165, 25 A. 2d 98.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.2d 746, 152 Pa. Super. 247, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senchak-v-tech-food-products-co-pasuperct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack