Case Title: WORKMEN'S COMP. AP. BD. v. Berger & Sons

Citation: 368 A.2d 282, 470 Pa. 239

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1977-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
470 Pa. 239 (1977) 368 A.2d 282 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD and Joseph Bartosevich, Appellants, v. IRA BERGER & SONS and Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued October 13, 1976. Decided January 28, 1977. *240 Eugene E. Duffy, Richard L. Zack, Hazleton, for appellants. Feldmann & Ciotola, Louis G. Feldmann, Anthony J. Ciotola, Hazleton, for appellees. Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. This appeal arises from an order of the Commonwealth Court which reversed an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board and granted appellee-employer's petition to terminate benefits. Claimant-appellant, Joseph Bartosevich (claimant) was injured on August 21, 1967, while working for Ira Berger & Sons (appellee). The parties entered into a compensation agreement for total disability payments of $52.50 per week. On February 19, 1969, appellee filed a termination petition which alleged that claimant was able to return to work on December 1, 1968. On October 8, 1971, a referee granted the termination petition, finding that, although appellant remained disabled, his disability was not causally related to the accident of August 21, 1967. Claimant appealed and the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (the board) vacated the referee's findings and remanded the case for appointment of an impartial medical expert. Upon rehearing, a different referee denied the termination petition, and the board affirmed. Two impartial medical experts testified that claimant was totally disabled. The disability was due to "conversion neurosis caused by the mismanagement or improper treatment of [the claimant] by [a chiropractor], who was selected by the claimant himself." Since there was no evidence that the claimant was either malingering or acting in bad faith when he sought treatment for the initial injury, the board held that the continuation of the disability was a direct result of the initial injury. On February 10, 1975, the Commonwealth Court reversed the board's order. Berger & Sons v. W.C.A.B., 17 Pa.Cmwlth. 370, 332 A.2d 5 (1975). Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which this court granted on July 7, 1975. *242 In reviewing decisions of the board, the Commonwealth Court must follow § 44 of the Administrative Agency Law.[1] See 77 P.S. § 876.1. That law provides, in relevant part: The board heard testimony of Dr. Charles Umlauf, an impartial medical expert, who is board certified in both neurology and psychiatry. Dr. Umlauf testified that the claimant was totally disabled as a result of a conversion neurosis. A second impartial physician, Dr. John Whitehill, an orthopedic specialist, offered testimony that was the same as Dr. Umlauf's. Based on this testimony, the referee found that: The board reaffirmed this finding of fact. The issue before this court is, thus, a narrow one: Is a conversion neurosis which results from negligent treatment of a compensable injury causally related to the initial compensable injury? *243 Dr. Umlauf explained conversion neurosis as: The leading case in this area is Hurchick v. Falls Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 32 Pa.D. & C.2d 729, 734-36, affirmed per curiam on the opinion of the court below, 203 Pa.Super. 1, 198 A.2d 356 (1964), which stated: Both impartial experts testified that the claimant was neither malingering nor seeking treatment for symptoms existing before the accident. Hurchick, supra, establishes that, as a matter of law, the total disability occasioned by mistreatment was caused by the original compensable injury. The Commonwealth Court attempted to distinguish Hurchick by stating that the connection between the initial injury and the present disability was too tenuous to allow compensation. The court reasoned, at Pages 374-75: We believe the Commonwealth Court erred for two reasons. First, it accepted findings of fact which were vacated by the board. The testimony of Drs. Feddish and Gunderson was part of that proceeding which the board vacated. More importantly, we can find no reason for disallowing benefits in case of a relapse where the remaining Hurchick standards are met. Claimant sought treatment, in good faith, and that treatment has *246 totally disabled him. All experts testified that claimant was neither malingering nor fabricating symptoms. The only treatment sought by the claimant was for symptoms which were not present before the accident. The instant case is on all fours with Hurchick, supra. We believe the Commonwealth Court's attempted distinction is unwarranted. As long as the subsequent disability is a result of negligent treatment for the initial injury, the disability is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is reinstated. ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] Act of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, § 1, et seq., 71 P.S. § 1710.1, et seq.