Opinion
June 24, 1983.
Workmen's compensation — Loss of hearing — Competent medical testimony.
1. A decision by workmen's compensation authorities that a claimant did not experience a complete loss of hearing in one ear and was thus not entitled to specific loss benefits will not be disturbed on appeal when supported by testimony of the claimant's own medical expert that the complete loss of hearing for all intents and purposes had not been sustained. [191]
Submitted on briefs May 11, 1983, to Judges ROGERS, BLATT and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1024 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Marla T. Dombrowski v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. A-79267.
Petition to the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Specific loss benefits denied. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Decision affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Benjamin Novak, for appellant.
Joseph P. Hafer, with him Thomas T. Niesen, for respondent, Weis Markets, Inc.
Marla P. Dombrowski (claimant) appeals an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of specific loss benefits for her alleged complete loss of hearing to her right ear due to a work-related fall.
Section 306(c) and (d) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act provides specific loss benefits for "complete loss of hearing in one ear." And our Supreme Court has held that complete loss of hearing occurs when the loss is complete for all intents and purposes. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Hartlieb, 465 Pa. 249, 348 A.2d 746 (1975). Here, when asked if the claimant had experienced a complete loss of hearing for all intents and purposes, her own medical expert testified "no, it is a partial loss." Because this testimony clearly supports the finding that the claimant has not suffered a "complete" loss of hearing, we will affirm the order of the Board.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 513.
Our scope of review here is limited to a determination of whether or not the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 1983, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.