Case Name: Karlberg v. Weber (et al., Appellant)
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1943-01-28
Citations: 151 Pa. Super. 173
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 114
Parties: Karlberg v. Weber (et al., Appellant).
Judges: Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 173–175

Head Matter:
Karlberg v. Weber (et al., Appellant).
Argued October 1, 1942.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
George H. Detweiler, for appellant.
Herman H. Yaffe, for appellee.
January 28, 1943:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This case was correctly decided by the court below in a compact, but adequate, opinion by' President Judge Finletter, reading as follows:
"Claimant was injured in the course of his employment by a fall from a ladder. His left arm and the right side of his head were affected. He was compensated for total disability under an agreement. Later he signed a final receipt indicating his ability to return to work. Later it was found that he was suffering from.a depressed fracture of the skull, which required an operation. Certain other injuries to the left arm developed. The final receipt was set aside by a referee. Later another referee sét aside a petition to modify. An order disallowing a petition to modify was made by a third referee. An appeal was then made to Workmen's Compensation Board, which affirmed the action of the third referee.
"The burden to show that a change should be made on the orders of the Referee and Board was of course upon the defendant. Testimony was taken on behalf of each party. The defendant called an insurance carrier's adjuster and a physician. Against this claimant called two physicians, one a gentleman who had attended claimant since May, 1940, and the other a doctor who had examined claimant. Both these experts were of opinion, and expressed themselves strongly, that there had been no decrease in disability. We are of the opinion that t'he weight of the testimony was with the claimant, and that the Referee and Board, having ample foundation for their findings, were justified in making them."
The judgment entered by the learned court below is affirmed.