DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1083 C.D. 1974
Citation Numbers: 19 Pa. Commw. 266
Judges: Blatt, Crumlish, Wilkinson
Filed Date: 5/27/1975
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
The narrow issue before us is whether the lower court
The parties agree that, as interpreted by the courts, Section 306(c) of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Com
In Hartlieb v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 118, 314 A.2d 519 (1974), we had occasion to review a record in connection with “complete” loss of hearing in both ears under Section 306(c)(8), the only sub-section to use the word “complete.” There, the Board had used the “for all practical intents and purposes” rule. We held that “complete” required a different test. However, we observed, on a record which might be considered by some to be stronger in support of the claimant than the instant one, that the evidence probably would not support a claim of loss of hearing even for all practical intents and purposes.
Under such circumstances, we cannot find that the lower court was incorrect in affirming the Board’s finding that the claimant had not carried his burden of proving the loss of use of the left foot “for all practical intents and purposes.”
Affirmed.
. The accident occurred on February 21, 1966. The hearings were held in 1969 and 1970. The Board’s decision was filed July 22, 1971. A timely appeal was filed to the lower court which affirmed the Board on July 22, 1974.
. During the pendency of the appeal from the Board to the lower court, the claimant died and the caption was amended appropriately by petition.