# Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 3, 1968 · 431 Pa. 446

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645198

## Case

- **Full name:** Barrett, Appellant, v. Otis Elevator Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 3, 1968
- **Citations:** 431 Pa. 446; 246 A.2d 668; 1968 Pa. LEXIS 641
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cohen
- **Judges:** Bell, Mtjsmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 147 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/9645198

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
In the recently decided case of Petrone v. Moffat Coal Co., 427 Pa. 5 , 233 A. 2d 891 (1967), we deter *459 mined that in a situation arising under the Occupational Disease Act, Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 566, §301 (e), 77 P.S. §1401 (e), when a claimant is found physically capable of performing light work of a general character, the burden is upon the parties from whom compensation is sought to show that such work is available to the claimant.
The instant case does not involve that situation, since here a definite determination was made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was 40% disabled by a back injury suffered in an accident at work. The record discloses that an impartial physician appointed by the Board testified unequivocally that there was a disability percentage of 85 to J¡0 percent and that this disability was applicable to any type of work. The Board adopted 40% as its finding. Its action was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County and the Superior Court.
The long established practice in Workmen’s Compensation litigation heretofore accepted a percentage of disability without the requirement of additional proof. I would not change that practice.
I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645198. Public record. Not legal advice.