Findon v. Nick Chevrolet

6 Citing cases

  1. Beck v. Container Corp. of America

    218 A.2d 839 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    For this reason her claim may not be sustained under the unusual pathological result doctrine. Cf. Findon v. NickChevrolet, 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238. Judgment affirmed.

  2. Jones v. Collier Const. Co.

    215 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    Reliance was placed on Paydo v. Union Collieries Co., 146 Pa. Super. 385, 22 A.2d 759, and Good v. Pa. Dept. of Prop. Sup., 346 Pa. 151, 30 A.2d 434, in neither of which case was there proof of an accident. The law is well settled that, where there is no accident in the ordinary lay understanding of the term, disability which occurs in the performance of claimant's usual duties is not compensable if it results from the aggravation of a pre-existing physical weakness: Bailey v. Buzzard, 205 Pa. Super. 432, 210 A.2d 926; Mohler v. Cook, 205 Pa. Super. 232, 209 A.2d 7; Findon v. Nick Chevrolet Co., 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238. The difficulty with the position of the lower court, however, is that claimant's case rests, not on the theory of unusual pathological result, but on the theory that there was an accident in the ordinary lay understanding of that term. In workmen's compensation cases, the evidence on appeal must be construed most favorably to the party who prevailed before the Board, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in support of the findings in his favor: Krasznay v. Milton RossMetals Co., 204 Pa. Super. 94, 203 A.2d 393. The instant record contains more than a simple statement that claimant "twisted himself", which was the situation in Toohey v.Carnegie Coal Corp., 150 Pa. Super. 297, 28 A.2d 362, cited in the employer's brief.

  3. Bailey v. Buzzard

    210 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1965)   Cited 4 times

    We find no capricious disregard of competent evidence in the case at bar, indeed no other determination by the Board could have been sustained on this record. Where, as in the instant case, there is no accident in the ordinary lay understanding of the term, disability which occurs in the performance of claimant's usual duties is not compensable if it results from the aggravation of a pre-existing physical weakness: Mohler v. Cook, 205 Pa. Super. 232, 209 A.2d 7. And see Findon v. NickChevrolet, 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238. Judgment affirmed.

  4. Mohler v. Cook et al

    209 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1965)   Cited 18 times
    In Mohler, claimant, a mason worker, allegedly suffered a back injury during the course of employment and consulted a Dr. Rahauser. Later, when employed on another masonry job, claimant again experienced a sharp pain in his back.

    There is another bar to claimant's recovery in the instant case. Where there is no accident in the ordinary lay understanding of the term, disability which occurs in the performance of claimant's usual duties is not compensable if it results from the aggravation of a pre-existing physical weakness: Findon v. Nick Chevrolet Co., 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238. Dr. Richards testified that, in view of claimant's congenital spondylolisthesis, "there is certainly a pre-existing weakness in the lower back". In Williams v. NewBethlehem Burial Service, 167 Pa. Super. 364, 74 A.2d 677, claimant suffered from a congenital spondylolisthesis which rendered him more susceptible to injuries of the back.

  5. Wance v. Gettig Eng. Mfg. Co., Inc.

    204 A.2d 492 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1964)   Cited 13 times
    In Wance v. Gettig Engineering Manufacturing Co., Inc., 204 Pa. Super. 297, 204 A.2d 492 (1964), the claimant was employed as the operator of a treadle sewing machine.

    197 Pa. Super. 648, 180 A.2d 272, and that the word "accident" is popularly defined as a sudden and unexpected event: Lacey v.Washburn Williams Co., 309 Pa. 574, 164 A. 724. However, the law is well settled that the factor which is unexpected may lie either in the circumstance causing the injury or in the nature of the injury itself: Good v. Pa. Department of Property andSupplies, 346 Pa. 151, 30 A.2d 434. Where an employe is performing his usual work but there occurs an unexpected and unusual pathological result, the accident resides in the extraordinary nature of the effect rather than in the cause: Gammaitoni v. Gasparini Excavating Co., 185 Pa. Super. 643, 139 A.2d 679. The foregoing principle applies only to disability of a normal healthy workman who has no physical weakness other than is common to all men: Rovere v. InterstateCemetery Co., 164 Pa. Super. 233, 63 A.2d 388. Such disability is not compensable if it results from the aggravation of a pre-existing physical weakness: Findon v. NickChevrolet, 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238. Carlson v. Batts, 207 P.2d 1023 (Idaho); Carter v.International Detrola Corp., 43 N.W.2d 890 (Michigan); Youngv. Melrose Granite Co., 189 N.W. 426 (Minnesota); Hurd v. Hesse Hurt, 172 S.E. 289 (Virginia).

  6. Connelly Containers, Inc. et al. v. Gahan

    301 A.2d 415 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    Essential to an award in this class of case is, however, a finding that the claimant was a normal healthy workman before the event. Findon v. Nick Chevrolet, 204 Pa. Super. 99, 203 A.2d 238 (1964); Scannella v. Salerno Importing Co., 2 Pa. Commw. 11, 275 A.2d 907 (1971). Therefore, the Board must consider whether the claimant's previous back injury was disqualifying.