Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board of the Commonwealth v. Commonwealth
Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board of the Commonwealth v. Commonwealth
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
These appeals have been taken by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the claimant’s employer from an award of workmen’s compensation for total disability caused by an occupational disease. The Commonwealth in this case raises the same arguments that were involved in Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and Klebick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 499, 338 A.2d 758 (1975), and our decision in that case will control the Commonwealth’s appeal taken to 109 C. D. 1975, if we find that the claimant has sustained his burden of proof in the employer’s appeal taken to 68 C. D. 1975.
The employer first alleges that there was no substantial medical evidence to support the referee’s finding of disability and that such disability, if present, was not caused by pneumoconiosis. There was medical evidence submitted by at least four doctors in this case,
The employer also argues that the report submitted by the Commonwealth’s medical expert, Dr. Kalla, was improperly considered by the Board after having been excluded by the referee. A careful review of the Board’s opinion leads us to conclude that there is no basis for this argument. The referee properly excluded the testimony and the Board improperly “overruled” the objection. However, the Board stated specifically that the referee, having excluded the testimony, did not consider it. The Board affirmed the referee’s findings and, since there is more than ample testimony to support the referee without Dr. Kalla’s testimony, the “overruling” of the objection is truly harmless error.
The employer assigns as error the fact that the referee and the Board did not appoint an impartial medical expert to examine claimant under Section 420 of the Act, 77 P. S. §831. The appointment of an impartial medical examiner is within the discretion of the referee or the Board where they “deem it necessary.” In light of the amount and quality of the medical testimony received in this case, we hold it was not an abuse of discretion for the referee or the Board to refuse to appoint an impartial examiner.
The arguments raised by the employer and the Commonwealth that the claimant did not show a sufficient causal connection between the post June 30, 1973 occupational disease hazard exposure and his disability are laid to rest by our decision in Klebick, supra.
Accordingly, we enter the following
Order
Now, June 5, 1975, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated January 2,1975, affirming the referee’s award of compensation to Stephen Papriska, is hereby affirmed.
. The report of Dr. Kalla will be discussed later in this opinion and will not be considered now for its evidentiary value.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.