# Robinson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 10, 1991 · 139 Pa. Commw. 82

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750319

## Case

- **Full name:** Gary E. ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (LINDSEY), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 10, 1991
- **Citations:** 139 Pa. Commw. 82; 589 A.2d 778; 1991 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McGINLEY
- **Judges:** McGinley, Kelley, Narick
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9750319

## Opinion text

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that in Finding of Fact No. 10, the referee unfairly characterizes Dr. Haser’s testimony with regard to the risks of Claimant’s reconstructive surgery and thus makes a finding not supported by substantial evidence. I disagree. Dr. Haser clearly testified that the operation may not work and could possibly result in damage to certain nerves and numbness to the foot. (Haser Deposition, N.T. at 23.) Dr. Haser also testified as to risks of infection and potential complications from being placed under anesthesia. (Haser Deposition, N.T. at 22-24.) I would hold that this testimony provided substantial evidence for Finding of Fact No. 10 which supports the referee’s conclusion that Claimant’s refusal of the recommended surgery was not unreasonable in view of the risks noted by Dr. Haser. Accordingly, I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750319. Public record. Not legal advice.