Evancik v. Coal Mining Co. of Graceton, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Hirt, J.,
Opinion by
In this case, both the referee and the board disallowed compensation and the court affirmed. The question is whether there is substantial competent evidence, sufficient to support this conclusion.
Claimant’s husband, 57 years old had been employed as a coal miner for a number of years. He was in apparent good health and had worked regularly whenever defendant’s mine was in operation. During the morning of April 25, 1940 he, with his ‘buddy’, Fertal, had loaded four cars of coal. About noon decedent went alone into the main entry; there he pulled a loaded car from the working…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gausman v. R. T. Pearson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Adamchick v. Wyoming Valley Collieries Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Monahan v. Seeds & DurhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Crispin v. Leedom Worrall Co. (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Royko v. Logan Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rosso v. Aetna Steel Products Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Wilcox v. Buckeye Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Smith v. A. De O. Rossiter & Sons Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Mathies Coal Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991