Opinion
Argued September 12, 1980
December 3, 1980.
Workmen's compensation — Confusion in the record — Remand.
1. A workmen's compensation case must be remanded to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board for clarification of the record when one basis for the decision of the Board is asserted in the decision to be the observation of the injured limb by the Board and the claimant has denied that he personally appeared before the Board. [64]
Argued September 12, 1980, before Judges MENCER, CRAIG and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1986 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Edward J. Bogacki v. Brockway Glass Corporation, No. A-76822.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry to set aside final receipt. Petition dismissed although specific loss benefits awarded. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Decision affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Case remanded.
Querino R. Torretti, for petitioner.
Mary J. McCrory, with her Robert G. Simasek and Lawrence J. O'Toole, Kyle and Ehrman, for respondents.
This is an appeal by Edward J. Bogacki (claimant) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the referee's dismissal of the claimant's petition to set aside a Final Receipt.
In November 1975, the claimant suffered a work-related injury to his right hand; and a Notice of Compensation Payable was subsequently filed. Between November 10, 1975, and February 7, 1976, the claimant received compensation. On February 13, 1976, he executed a Final Receipt. A Supplemental Agreement was filed in August 1976, resulting in the claimant being paid additional compensation for the period from July 7, 1976, to May 28, 1977. On May 31, 1977, claimant Bogacki executed a second Final Receipt.
Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition asserting total disability of his right hand. The petition was treated as one to set aside the Final Receipt; and, after a hearing, the referee dismissed the petition. However, the referee did award "specific loss" compensation for three fingers. The claimant appealed the referee's decision to the Board; and the Board affirmed.
In affirming the referee, the Board stated in its opinion that "the claimant appeared at the Board hearing, thus permitting the Board to observe the hand and fingers concerned." According to the opinion, that observation was part of the Board's basis for affirming the referee.
However, the claimant's brief to this Court asserts that he never appeared before the Board and thus the Board could not have observed his hand and fingers, as stated in the opinion.
We have nothing before us in this appeal that enables us to resolve this disturbing disagreement as to what occurred below. Accordingly, we must remand this case to the Board for an explanation or clarification of its statement that it observed the claimant's hand and fingers.
ORDER
AND NOW, the 3rd day of December, 1980, the above-captioned case is hereby remanded to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, to proceed in accordance with the annexed opinion.