Connelly v. W.C.A.B. et. al

Full title: Rose A. Connelly, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen's…

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 4, 1979

399 A.2d 817 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1979)

399 A.2d 817

Opinion

Argued February 8, 1979

April 4, 1979.

Workmen's compensation — Unequivocal medical evidence — Disability — Conflicting evidence.

1. Unequivocal medical testimony that the disability of a workmen's compensation claimant has ceased is sufficient to support findings to that effect although competent medical evidence to the contrary was also introduced, as the resolution of evidentiary conflicts is for the factfinder, not the reviewing court. [486]

Argued February 8, 1979, before Judges ROGERS, BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 425 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Rose A. Connolly v. City of Philadelphia, No. A-72182.

Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for disability benefits. Benefits awarded for limited period. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed. Petition for reargument filed and denied.

Joseph J. Carlin, for petitioner.

Barry J. Grossman, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Sheldon L. Albert, City Solicitor, and James M. Penny, Jr., Deputy City Solicitor, for appellee.

OPINION BY JUDGE BLATT, April 4, 1979:

The appellant, Rose A. Connelly, appeals here from a decision by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) granting her benefits for a limited period of time but finding that her disability had terminated on February 24, 1976 and cutting off benefits as of that date.

The appellant argues that the finding of fact by the referee as affirmed by the Board that her disability had terminated is not supported by substantial evidence. The record, however, contains a physician's report which stated, "I do not think that this woman has any disability at this time." This unequivocal statement supplies the requisite evidence to support the findings, even though medical evidence to the contrary was also introduced. It is for the fact-finder to resolve such conflicts and determine which evidence to accept as credible, not for this Court. City of Johnstown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commw. 464, 381 A.2d 1355 (1978); DiCamillo v. City of Philadelphia, 16 Pa. Commw. 402, 328 A.2d 223 (1974).

We must, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 1979, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.