From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capitol A. Transit v. W.C.A.B

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 11, 1983
466 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)

Summary

sustaining administrative ruling that claimant's hemorrhoids and other rectal problems were caused and aggravated by his job as a bus driver

Summary of this case from Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey

Opinion

October 11, 1983.

Workmen's compensation — Causation — Aggravation — Medical evidence.

1. A workmen's compensation award of total disability benefits will be affirmed when substantial medical evidence, sufficiently unequivocal, supports a finding that the disabling condition was the result of a continuous aggrevation of a condition caused by employment activities as a bus driver. [437]

Submitted on briefs May 12, 1983, to Judges BLATT, MacPHAIL and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1620 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Chaucer Duncan v. Capitol Area Transit, No. A-83158.

Petition to the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Frederick W. Andrews, Graf, Knupp Andrews, P.C., for petitioner.

R. Elliot Katherman, for respondent, Chaucer A. Duncan.


Capitol Area Transit appeals to this Court from the action of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in affirming an award against it in favor of its employee, Chaucer A. Duncan. We will affirm.

Chaucer A. Duncan, while a bus driver for the defendant over a period of some years, was forced to leave his employment on October 9, 1979, since which date he has been totally disabled except for a period of three weeks when he held other employment. His disability was caused by a series of complications in the anal area, including hemorrhoids and anterior perianal abscess with anal fistula. He suffered recurrences and breakdowns in surgical repairs, with multiple surgical procedures including a diverting colostomy. The referee found that the Claimant's disabling ailments, his rectal and anal problems, were caused and aggravated by his job as a bus driver and that he has been totally disabled thereby since October 9, 1979. Relying upon Hinkle v. H. J. Heinz Co., 462 Pa. 111, 337 A.2d 907 (1975), he concluded that the claimant's repeated minimal injuries in the course of his employment as a bus driver prior to October 9, 1979, resulted in the injury as of October 9, 1979. He awarded compensation with credit for the three weeks that Claimant had worked other than as a bus driver.

Our study of the record satisfies us that there is sufficient unequivocal evidence in support of the finding of causal relationship, the basic issue on this appeal. Claimant's medical witness, Dr. Reza G. Azizkhan, a qualified and certified general surgeon, testified that the long series of anal and rectal problems, with the complications and recurrences, was caused by bus driver activities and aggravated thereby, causing the disability that claimant suffers. Defendant's medical witness, Kenneth W. Graf, M.D., also a general surgeon, testified that he, too, had operated on Claimant, performing a colostomy and resection of abnormal perianal skin in surgical procedures carried out in March and April of 1980. While he was unable to determine whether or not he could give an opinion as to the cause of Claimant's anal and rectal difficulties, he did testify that if informed of the nature of Claimant's employment as a bus driver, "I would have probably changed my opinion to yes." He testified further that the conditions developed by Claimant "could have" been caused by the conditions which he underwent as a bus driver. He testified further that Claimant was unable to perform his job as a bus driver, that Claimant was totally disabled and would be unable to perform any kind of work.

We agree with the referee that the facts and circumstances in this case meet the standards as laid down in Hinkle and that the medical testimony in support of the causal relationship as found is sufficiently unequivocal to support the findings and conclusions based thereon. Westmoreland Casualty Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 36 Pa. Commw. 307, 387 A.2d 683 (1978); see also City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 54 Pa. Commw. 230, 420 A.2d 795 (1980).

ORDER

NOW, October 11, 1983, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, dated June 24, 1982, at Docket No. A-83158, is affirmed.


Summaries of

Capitol A. Transit v. W.C.A.B

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 11, 1983
466 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)

sustaining administrative ruling that claimant's hemorrhoids and other rectal problems were caused and aggravated by his job as a bus driver

Summary of this case from Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey
Case details for

Capitol A. Transit v. W.C.A.B

Case Details

Full title:Capitol Area Transit, Petitioner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 11, 1983

Citations

466 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)
466 A.2d 249

Citing Cases

USAir, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Relying on Hinkle, this court reversed, concluding that the repeated overhead hammering activity was…

Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey

We note briefly that other jurisdictions faced with the issue of worker's compensation coverage for…