Opinion
Argued May 6, 1982
October 1, 1982.
Workmen's compensation — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review.
1. In a workmen's compensation case, when the party with the burden of proof prevails before the referee, the scope of review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, when it takes no additional evidence, is limited to determining whether the referee's findings are supported by sufficient evidence. [250]
Argued May 6, 1982 before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges CRAIG and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 795 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of John Ofcansky v. Lincoln Hills Country Club, No. A-77368.
Petition to the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Appeal sustained. Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Anthony J. Martin, with him Mary Ann Rapp Durkin, Martin, Durkin Martin, for petitioner.
Frederick C. Trenor, II, with him Lawrence J. Baldasare, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek Eck, for respondent.
John Ofcansky appeals a Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board order reversing a referee's decision and denying benefits. We affirm.
A co-employee of Ofcansky, a minor, agreed to drive him home if they left work at the same time. One night, because the ride was unavailable, they walked home and Ofcansky was struck by an automobile causing the injuries for which he seeks compensation.
Ofcansky was fifteen years old when he was employed by the Lincoln Hills Country Club.
The referee granted benefits, finding that Ofcansky's employment contract provided for this kind of transportation. The Board reversed, concluding that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding.
Where the party with the burden of proof prevailed before the referee, our scope of review and that of the Board, when it takes no additional evidence, is limited to determining whether or not the referee's findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Vavro v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 63 Pa. Commw. 462, 439 A.2d 841 (1981).
We hold that the referee's finding that Ofcansky's employment contract included transportation to his home is unsupported by substantial evidence.
The Board concluded, and we agree, that Ofcansky should be denied benefits because he was injured while off the employer's premises and was not acting in furtherance of his employer's business and the alleged transportation was not provided in his employment contract. Davis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 41 Pa. Commw. 262, 398 A.2d 1105 (1979).
Affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, No. 77368 dated March 12, 1981, is hereby affirmed.