Smith v. W.C.A.B

2 Citing cases

  1. SKF USA, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Smalls)

    728 A.2d 385 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the Board's order reversing the WCJ's denial of the claim petition and remanding for entry of an appropriate award was appealable because mere computation of benefits did not require exercise of administrative discretion

    pproach. This court has upheld a finding of a recurrence where the same kind of injury recurs in the same body part, where the same type of pain or symptom recurs, see, e.g., ITT-Hartford Ins. Group v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.), 688 A.2d 247, 250 (Pa.Commw. 1997) (claimant's pain was similar to that experienced with prior disability and physician testified that claimant developed recurrence of earlier symptoms); Lackawanna Refuse v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Christiano), 459 A.2d 899, 900 (Pa.Commw. 1993) (claimant testified he was having the "same sort of pain" after his second injury that he had suffered subsequent to his first injury), or where evidence was presented that there was not a full recovery from the prior injury, see, e.g., Temple Univ. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Ins. Co. of North America), 588 A.2d 63 (Pa.Commw. 1991) (testimony that claimant had not fully recovered from the initial injury prior to the second injury); Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Caton), 606 A.2d 599 (Pa.Commw. 1992) (testimony that claimant had never fully recovered from initial back injury prior to second back injury). Here, neither the injury at issue, the body part involved nor the type of pain or symptoms are the same and claimant recovered from the 1980 injury.

  2. Reliable Foods v. W.C.A.B

    660 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1995)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that where a claimant is receiving partial disability benefits following a return to work and, then, is totally disabled as a result of a new injury, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for both injuries concurrently, so long as the maximum compensation payable is not exceeded

    irming that the disability caused by pain in the claimant's lower back and leg after the claimant lifted himself out of a cellar window was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, where the referee accepted a doctor's testimony that the claimant had fully recovered from prior injuries and rejected contradictory testimony; Blue Bell Printing, upholding a referee's finding that the claimant had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing back condition, based on testimony that the claimant had fully recovered from a prior back injury and without reference to an intervening incident; Temple University v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Insurance Co. of North America), 138 Pa. Commw. 394, 588 A.2d 63 (1991), affirming that two subsequent exposures to chemicals merely exacerbated the claimant's symptoms and constituted a recurrence of her prior disability, where the evidence reflected that the claimant never fully recovered from the disability resulting from an initial exposure; and Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Caton), 146 Pa. Commw. 495, 606 A.2d 599 (1992), affirming the decision that the claimant suffered a recurrence of a prior back injury while lifting boxes, based on evidence that the claimant had never fully recovered from the prior injury and that the subsequent incident merely caused the symptoms of the claimant's prior injury to recur. In other cases, however, the focus has been on the significance of the subsequent event.