# Schumacher v. J. C. Wilson, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 18, 1945 · 157 Pa. Super. 249

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3859368

## Case

- **Full name:** Schumacher v. J. C. Wilson, Inc. Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 18, 1945
- **Citations:** 157 Pa. Super. 249; 42 A.2d 191; 1945 Pa. Super. LEXIS 342
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt, Reno, Ross, Arnold
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3859368

## Opinion text

Per Curiam,
In this workmen’s compensation case the referee found claimant suffered the loss of use of his right eye in the course of his employment with defendant. Claimant was using a torch and solder on an automobile radiator when the solder exploded and pieces entered his right eye resulting ultimately in detached retina and complete loss of vision. An award in claimant’s favor was affirmed by the board and by the court of common pleas. Defendant appeals.
There is ample medical evidence to support the finding that on March 27, 1942, the date of the accident, the cornea of claimant’s right eye was burned by exploding pieces of solder. Dr. McCaslin so testified in positive and direct language as did defendant’s own Dr. Rhodes, the company doctor, who was called by claimant. True Dr. Buvinger, called by defendant, was of the opinion that there was no causal connection between the accident of March 27, 1942, and the detached retina. This conflict in the medical testimony, however, was for the fact finding authorities; they have resolved it in favor of claimant.
All the questions raised by this appeal fall within the familiar principle that questions of fact are ex
*251
clusively for the compensation authorities and where, as here, their findings are supported by competent evidence, we cannot disturb them:
Williams v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Apt.,
155 Pa. Superior Ct. 435, 439 , 38 A. 2d 343 .
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3859368. Public record. Not legal advice.