Armco, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Robbins)

Full title: Armco, Inc., Petitioner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Robbins)…

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 6, 1986

508 A.2d 1305 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)

508 A.2d 1305

Opinion

Argued March 10, 1986

May 6, 1986.

Workmen's compensation — Loss of hearing — Proper test.

1. In a workmen's compensation proceeding the test for the determination of whether a loss of hearing has occurred is not whether the claimant can use his ears in the manner nature intended, but rather whether the claimant has lost his hearing for all practical intents and purposes. [50]

Argued March 10, 1986, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., Judges ROGERS and BARRY, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1138 C.D. 1985, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, in case of Harry F. Robbins v. Armco, Inc., No. A-87875.

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: Vacated and remanded.

John J. Petrush, for petitioner.

Samuel S. Blaufeld, with him, Pamela M. Schiller, for respondent, Harry F. Robbins.

OPINION BY JUDGE ROGERS, May 6, 1986:

In the case of Babcock Wilcox v. Workmen's Appeal Board (Marshall), 97 Pa. Commw. 46, 508 A.2d 1303 (1986), decided this day, we vacated an order of the Appeal Board affirming an award of compensation for loss of hearing claimed by the worker under Section 306(c)(8) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 513. Here, as in that case, the compensation authorities improperly applied a test described in some of our cases to the effect that a claimant may establish a loss of hearing by demonstrating that he cannot use his ears in the manner nature intended. We disapproved that test.

For the reasons given in our opinion in Babcock Wilcox v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Marshall), and not necessary to repeat, we are constrained to vacate the order of the Appeal Board and remand to the Appeal Board for further disposition of the matter according to the true test for complete loss of hearing described herein.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 1986, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is vacated and the record is remanded for further disposition of the matter according to the true test for loss of hearing described herein.