Court Opinion

ID: 9760507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:58:14.463749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:13.029300
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. We have consistently held that it is the duty of this Court to remand a workmen’s compensa*503tion case when the order appealed from is contradictory, ambiguous, and where the referee fails to make findings which are sufficiently specific to reach the legal conclusions necessary to dispose of the case. See Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Hamilton), 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 594, 505 A.2d 1372 (1986), and cases cited therein.
As the majority explains, a modification petition involves a shifting burden of proof. The employer must first show a change of medical condition, followed by availability of work within claimant’s limited capabilities. Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987). The burden then shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that he has in good faith followed through on the job referral(s). If the referral fails to result in a job, the claimant’s benefits are continued. Id., 516 Pa. at 252, 532 A.2d at 380.
Here, it is clear that employer met the first two conditions of Kachinski. The referee, however, found that:
7. Testimony of the claimant reveals that he experiences shortness of breath, wheezes and his chest is tight. He admitted that he still smokes cigarettes and drinks alcohol. He applied for the three positions with Enrico’s Baker [sic], D & L Van Conversions, and Things Remembered respectively, but received no request for interviews of offers of employment for any of the position [sic]. He indicated that the position with Enrico’s Bakery was not suitable for him and that he was not qualified for a fourth position as a telemarketing representative for U-Haul center for which he, however, applied.
This finding contradicts the referee’s later Finding of Fact No. 9, in which the referee finds that “three positions are available to the claimant, namely, driver/salesperson with Enrico’s Bakery, salesperson with D & L Van Conversions, and salesperson with Things Remembered____”
Since the referee found as fact that claimant had applied for the jobs but that he had received no interview or job *504offer, this finding would support a continuation of benefits. Finding of Fact No. 9, of course, would support a grant of modification. Since the two findings are diametrically opposed, I would hold that the record is insufficiently complete for appellate review and remand for additional findings solely on the issue of claimant’s good faith effort to pursue the job referrals.
I also fail to find, as did the majority, that the contradiction is “cured” by the referee’s Finding of Fact No. 10, in which the referee noted that he assigned “no probative weight to claimant’s testimony regarding his desire and capability of working in the job positions made available to him.” The majority would have this finding read as a credibility determination which it would then use to negate Finding No. 7. I believe that this goes beyond our scope of review.
The referee found as fact that claimant had applied for the positions. Claimant’s testimony, on which the referee made no credibility finding, provides substantial evidence for this finding.1 Because I find the referee’s findings of fact contradictory and unintelligible, I would reverse the Board and remand to the referee for appropriate findings.

. Reproduced Record at 132-135. Specifically, regarding the job at Enrico’s Bakery, claimant was asked:
Q. Did you apply for a job at Enrico’s Bakery as a driver-salesperson?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. When did you apply for this job?
A. That was on, I think, the 28th of — I don’t know the exact date. 4/28/86.
Q. Do you know who you talked to there?
A. I guess it was the owner or the manager.
Q. What was his name?
A. Let’s see. It looks like S-f-e-1-1.
Q. I am showing you an application for employment. Did you fill this out at Enrico’s Bakery?
A. Yes, ma’am.
A copy of the application is in the Reproduced Record at 162-163.