Hennessey v. United Stove Repair Co.

Citations

• 68 Pa. Super. 553
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 171

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Findings of fact— Appeals — Examination of evidence — Act of June 2,1915, P. L. 7§6.</p> <p>Under tbe Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, it is tbe duty of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Board when an appeal is taken from tbe referee’s report, to examine all tbe evidence submitted when questions of fact are presented, and a bearing de novo is not allowed. Tbe right of the parties to insist that the board shall examine all the evidence, .and from it make its finding, is a right given by the act, and where it affirmatively appears from the board’s report that it has not considered the material and relevant evidence of one of the parties, such action is a denial to that person of a substantive right which the law gives, and such action presents a legal question for the determination of the appellate courts. In such a ease it is not the duty of the appellate court to determine whether a valid claim has been presented under the act. That is peculiarly the function of the compensation board, and the case will be remanded to that body for hearing and determination as provided by the statute.</p> <p>Where a workman during working hours steps on a tack or nail and-injures his toe, and thereafter goes into a different employment in another plant, and subsequently enters into a compensation agreement for a small amount with his first employer, and a few weeks afterwards dies from a swelling in the neck, the widow in an action for her husband’s death cannot set up the compensation agreement as res ad judicata that the injury was received during the course of employment. In such a case, if the Workmen’s Compensation .Board finds for the widow on the sole ground “that the matters contained in said compensation agreement are res adjudieata,” without considering any other evidence, the case will be remanded to the Compensation Board for further hearing and determination.</p>