Opinion
April 22, 1942.
April 29, 1942.
Appeals — Interlocutory orders — Workmen's compensation — Remitting record to board for further testimony.
1. In a workmen's compensation case, an order of the court below remitting the record to the board, in order that additional and unequivocal medical testimony might be taken, was interlocutory and an appeal did not lie from it.
Workmen's compensation — Injuries — Loss of use of hand — Loss of use of arm.
2. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, the term "hand" meant the arm up to, but not including the elbow.
3. A claimant lost the use of his "arm" within the meaning of that act only where he lost the use of his elbow or upper arm.
Appeal, No. 97, April T., 1942, from order of C.P. Washington Co., Feb. T., 1941, No. 327, in case of George Gondak v. Wilson Gas Coal Company et al.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, RHODES, HIRT and KENWORTHEY, JJ. Appeal quashed.
Appeal by claimant from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board dismissing petition to review.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Order entered remitting record to board for further testimony, opinion by HUGHES, J. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court below.
Karl E. Weise, for appellant.
August L.W. Sismondo, for appellee.
Argued April 22, 1942.
The appellee's motion to quash the appeal must prevail. We are satisfied from an examination of the record, in connection with the opinion of the court below, that the order of the court remitting the record to the board, in order that additional and unequivocal medical testimony may be taken, is interlocutory and that an appeal does not lie from it.
We may add that the testimony of the physicians should be directed to a statement of the physical condition of the claimant's elbow and upper arm, rather than the legal effect of it. It is admitted that he has lost the use of his hand. By the term `hand', the Workmen's Compensation Act means the arm up to, but not including, the elbow. If claimant has lost the use of his elbow or upper arm, he has lost the use of his `arm', within the meaning of the act. If he hasn't, he has not lost the use of his arm.
The Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, was in force at the time of the accident, July 28, 1936.
We do not understand that the court is attempting to usurp the fact-finding functions of the board and is directing it to make any particular findings of fact. Of course, it has no power to do that.
Appeal quashed.