DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1328 C.D. 1975
Judges: Blatt, Crumlish, Kramer, Wilkinson
Filed Date: 6/18/1976
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
Appellant-claimant suffered a compensable injury on January 10,1972, when she struck her head on what she described as the sharp edge of a cabinet door. She was not rendered unconscious and did not cut her head, but a lump was raised. She reported the injury, had x-rays, and went home. She had a headache and took some pills. She was off work approximately three weeks until February 1, 1972. She testified she returned on February 1 to see if she could return to work. She received a slip from the examining physician to return to work and was told by the head of her department that she would be terminated if she missed any more time. She worked until Wednesday of the next week and then took off Thursday and Friday because of pain. She was then informed by her supervisor that she was being terminated for absenteeism. She had not worked from that time until the time of her first hearing on October 19, 1972.
Appellant-claimant filed her claim petition on May 12, 1972. Hearings were held October 19, 1972, February 14, 1973, and November 18, 1974, and depositions were taken. Appellee-employer requested an opportunity to file a brief and did so on December 31, 1974, with a copy to appellant-claimant which seems to have arrived on January 2, 1975. On January 27, 1975, the referee filed his decision without waiting further for appellant-claimant’s reply brief. By letter dated December 13, 1974, appellant-claimant had requested a reasonable amount of time to file a reply brief. Especially since appellant-claimant was the moving party and should have been prepared to file a brief first, we cannot say that 25 days was not a reasonable time within which to file a reply brief. When reply briefs are permitted by this Court, the time is frequently, if not usually, restricted to not more than 10 days.
The referee found that appellant-claimant’s disability caused by the accident terminated on February
The remaining question raised and the only one of substance is whether the referee capriciously disregarded competent medical evidence in deciding that any disability following February 1, 1972, was not caused by nor related to her accident of January 10, 1972. After a careful review of the medical testimony, we must affirm the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board that this case contains a direct conflict in the testimony with competent medical testimony going both ways. Under Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 305 A.2d 757 (1973), the referee must be affirmed.
Without unduly extending this opinion, it seems appropriate to point out that appellant-claimant contradicted herself in her testimony on many vital points. For example, the fundamental basis for her claim of disability was that subsequent to the injury, she suffered severe headaches. When asked if she suffered headaches before the injury, she said she had had only four migraine or change-of-life headaches. Again, she said that she had “slight headaches” before January 10, 1972, but only slight headaches. She then admitted being hospitalized “about five days” in 1971 for headaches. Further, appellee-employer called a physician who testified that he had treated appellant-claimant for headaches in 1970 which were occurring every second or third day.
Accordingly, we enter the following
Order
Now, June 18, 1976, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated August 1, 1975,
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is assessed on all deferred payments of compensation.
The defendant shall take credit for any payments of compensation paid to the claimant.