Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Outcome
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prevailed on appeal. The court reversed the lower court's award of funeral benefits, finding that the claimant failed to present sufficient medical evidence that the deceased's silicosis was a substantial contributing factor to his death from myocardial infarction.
Excerpt
<p>Appeal, No. 318, Oct. T., 1891, by J. M. Chadwick, guardian, from decree of O. C. Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1890, dismissing exceptions to adjudication.</p> <p>On December 1, 1890, the third partial account of E. H. Myers and John R. Baum, executors of the will of B. H. Landwehr, deceased, showing a balance of 125,740.21, for distribution, was confirmed nisi. The confirmation having been made absolute, the account was called for audit on December 18,1890.</p> <p>At the audit, it was shown that the testator died on December 28, 1880, leaving a will dated November 18, 1878, duly admitted to probate. Said will, after providing for the payment of testator’s debts, etc., and for certain pecuniary legacies, proceeded:</p> <p>“ Fourth. All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal, and mixed, I give, bequeath and devise as follows, to wit: To John R. Baum and Ernest Henry Myers, my sons-in-law, my executors hereinafter named, who are to sell the same as soon after my decease as they, my executors, shall think fit and expedient, for such price or prices and upon such terms as they may deem best, and in such quantities as may suit purchasers, but in such manner as may be approved of by the judgment of said executors; and of the net proceeds thereof pay one fourth thereof to the children of my son, B. Henry Landwehr, or the survivors of them; one other fourth part thereof pay to my daughter, Amelia Myers, wife of Ernest Plenry Myers; and the remaining half part thereof pay to my daughter Sophia, the wife of said John R. Baum.</p> <p>“ And to effect the foregoing purposes I do give unto my said executors full possession and authority to sell and convey the said real estate, and to execute conveyances thereof in fee-simple or otherwise, without the intervention of any court for that purpose, to the purchaser or purchasers.'”</p> <p>It was shown, also, that at the time of the death of the testator, his son, B. Henry Landwehr, had seven children. Afterward, an
Similar Rulings
<bold>Workers' Compensation — Causation — fibromyalgia — doctor's opinion</bold> <bold>testimony</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that competent evidence was presented to support the Industrial Commission's findings of fact with regard to the cause of plaintiff-employee's fibromyalgia based solely on the opinion testimony of one doctor.</block_quote>
<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — Seagraves test — injured employee's</bold> <bold>right to continuing benefits — termination for misconduct</bold> <block_quote> Our Supreme Court adopts the <italic>Seagraves</italic>, <cross_reference>123 N.C. App. 228</cross_reference> (2003), test for determining an injured employee's right to continuing workers' compensation benefits after being terminated for misconduct whereby an employer must demonstrate initially that the employee was terminated for misconduct, the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee, and the termination was unrelated to the employee's compensable injury, in order to find that an employee constructively refused suitable work, thus barring workers' compensation benefits for lost earnings unless the employee is then able to show that his inability to find or hold other employment at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury is due to the work-related injury.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — constructive refusal of suitable</bold> <bold>employment — termination for misconduct unrelated to</bold> <bold>workplace injuries</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by concluding that defendant employer met its burden of providing competent evidence that plaintiff employee's failure to perform her UPC labeling duties was not related to her prior compensable injury under workers' compensation, which thereby led to her termination for misconduct and denial of additional workers' compensation benefits based on an alleged failure to accept a suitable position reasonably offered by her employer, because: (1) the evidence relied upon by the Commission's majority indicated that plaintiff was having continuing problems in the wake of, and as a result of, her injuries; (2) there was no competent evidence referenced in the Commission's opinion and award that supported a showing by defendant employer that
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.