# Croll v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 20, 1986 · 511 Pa. 79

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646600

## Case

- **Full name:** Evelyn CROLL, Widow of Henry Croll, Deceased v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (DORR-OLIVER, INC.); Willard KAY, Andrew Resuta and Michael Pesta v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (DORR-OLIVER, INC.) Appeal of DORR-OLIVER, INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 20, 1986
- **Citations:** 511 Pa. 79; 511 A.2d 1311; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 807
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Zappala, Hutchinson, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9646600

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in the majority opinion, I am compelled to write separately to clarify the review powers of the Board. Under Section 423 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 854, “... the board may disregard the findings of fact of the referee if not supported by competent evidence and if it deem proper may hear other evidence, ....” (emphasis added). Since the Board may hear “other evidence”, it logically follows that the Board may appoint an impartial expert to give evidence regarding a relevant issue. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, I see no error in the action of the Board in remanding the matter to a new referee and appointing an impartial expert.
NIX, C.J., and McDERMOTT, J., join in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646600. Public record. Not legal advice.