Shickley v. Phila. & Reading C. & I. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1922
• Citation: 274 Pa. 360
• Parties: Shickley, Appellant, <I>v.</I> Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

274 Pa. 360

Shickley, Appellant,v.

Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 8, 1922.

May 25, 1922.

Argued May 8, 1922.

Appeal, No. 291, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 126, affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, in case of Annie Shickley v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. Affirmed.

Roger J. Dever, for appellant.—The facts as found by the compensation referee are final and conclusive on the Workmen's Compensation Board, unless the board grants a hearing de novo and finds its own facts: Clark v. Coal Co., 264 Pa. 529; Palmer v. Coal Co., 7 Department Rep. 1496; Tolan v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 270 Pa. 12.

Voris Auten, with him B. D. Troutman, for appellee, cited: Stahl v. Watson, 268 Pa. 452; Deane v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 27 Pa. Dist. R. 730; Kuca v. Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163.

PER CURIAM, May 25, 1922:

Annie Shickley claimed compensation for the death of her husband, Henry Shickley, who was employed by defendant company. The referee made an award in her favor, which was reversed by the compensation board, and the decision of the latter was affirmed by the court below. The claimant has appealed. The questions involved, as stated by the appellant, are: (1) "Can the ......board reverse the findings of fact of the...... referee without having granted a hearing de novo?" (2) "Is an accident which happened on the premises of the employer, on a path leading to and from the place at which the employee was employed, and found by the referee to have happened in the course of employment, a compensable accident?"

As to the first question, it is sufficient to say that the controlling point in the case, suggested by the second of the above-stated questions, is one of law and not of fact. All the material underlying facts found by the referee were accepted by the board, but the latter drew a different conclusion therefrom, determining that, on the facts as found, the place where the accident happened was not part of the premises of the employer within the meaning of that term as used in the act; this — the finding complained of — is a conclusion of law.

The referee found that, on April 20, 1919, Shickley died from a disease of traumatic origin, "probably due to a wrench received on April 7, 1919, aggravated by his continuing at work"; that the accident was caused by the deceased slipping on a loose stone at a spot on a path leading to his place of employment,...