Reading Anthracite Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Barry:

I respectfully dissent. I do not believe the question of surgical intervention to possibly restore use of the claimants leg was properly presented to the referee. Accordingly, I see no need for a remand and would reverse the Boards order and reinstate the referees order.

The party asserting that an individual has lost the use of a bodily part for all practical intents and purposes bears the burden of proving such loss. Martin Trucking Company v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Andrushenko), 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 174, 422 A.2d 1225 (1960). Here, the…