Neary v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania July 10, 1918

Neary v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 69 Pa. Super. 562 (1918)

1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 134

Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The single question involved in this appeal is clearly stated in the opinion filed by the learned court below. Its answer depends on a proper interpretation of Paragraph E, Section 306, of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We are convinced the learned court below reached the correct conclusion and the opinion filed by him furnishes reasons satisfactory to us in support of that conclusion. We therefore overrule the assignments of error and dismiss the appeal at the costs of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: Neary v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: TVorhmen’s Compensation Act — Medical service — Refusal of medical service — Change of positions — Act of June %, 1915, Sec. 806, P. L. 786. The words “shown to have resulted from such refusal” in paragraph E of Section 306, of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, F. L. 736, modifies the preceding word “injury” as well as the preceding word “increase” so as not to deprive the claimant of all compensation for his refusal to accept medical service from his employer, but only to compensation for injury or increase of incapacity caused by the refusal to accept, medical assistance. The mere fact that the claimant has dismissed a physician engaged by his employer, and engaged another, will not of itself deprive him absolutely of all compensation for his injuries.