It is perfectly apparent that the Legislature intended in just such a case as the one under consideration that the employer should not only furnish reasonable medical service during the first fourteen days of sickness, with the limitation as to cost, but also, if after that period death followed as a result of that injury, then there should be paid to dependents, or if no dependents to the personal representative of the deceased, the cost of the last sickness and burial to the extent of one hundred dollars, without the deduction of the first named amount. The ruling of the Referee is affirmed and the appeal dismissed. MRS. KATE GAHAN vs. STRAWBRIDGE & CLOTHIER Hearings de novo-When granted-Hearsay testimonyBasis for award. Where an award in favor of a claimant was based upon hearsay testimony, but the record showed that witnesses who were available were not called and the claimant's interests were thereby prejudiced, a hearing de novo will be granted. An award based on hearsay testimony cannot be affirmed. Appeal from Award of Referee Wm. B. Scott, Dist. No. 1. Claim Petition No. 852. Hearing de novo granted. (For Report of the Award of the Referee, see 2 Dep. Rep. 2568.) MACKEY, Chairman, Jan. 25, 1917: The record in this case involves a number of very interesting and important questions, none of which, however, need be determined by the Board at this particular time for the reason that it occurs to us that the wisest course for the Board to adopt will be to avail itself of the power granted to it under Section 421 and grant a hearing de novo. The appellant has taken exception to every finding of fact and conclusion of law of the Referee. The record shows that in a number of instances the Referee admitted testimony under the objection of the defendant. We are convinced that a number of these objections are well founded, particularly in view of the fact that a number of hearsay statements were admitted in evidence together with the hospital record neither of which have led to the discovery of any reliable or substantive testimony. This hospital record is purely hearsay. The entries therein were not made by any witness called and, more than this, the entire medical evidence consists of this hearsay evidence upon which a physician based his opinion. We cannot sustain a finding based upon hearsay evidence. If the record had not revealed the fact that the best evidence as to the condition of the deceased at the hospital was available we would have had no other duty in this case but to reverse the Referee on the ground that the evidence did not sustain his finding as to the cause of death; but in view of the fact that the physicians who treated the deceased in the hospital were not called and their absence was not accounted for, it occurs to us that the claimant's interests were thereby seriously affected. Section 421 gives the Board the right to grant a hearing de novo. Inasmuch as this is an appeal involving an error of the Referee in admitting evidence under objection and basing his conclusions upon such inconclusive, immaterial and hearsay testimony. We accordingly grant a hearing de novo, the time and place for the same to be hereafter fixed by the Board. ANDREW AND FRANCIS KALNICK vs. WEST LEECHBURG STEEL COMPANY. Dependents and dependency-Parents-How determined. Whether or not parents were dependent upon the contributions of a deceased son is a question of fact which ought to be supported not only by the statements of the claimants, but by corroborative proof as to the family income aside from the wages of the deceased, proof of living expenses, etc. Where such cor roborative proof is offered, however, the fact of dependency will be found in favor of the claimants. Appeal from Award of Referee L. E. Christley, District No. 8. Claim Petition No. 1337. Affirmed. MACKEY, Chairman, Jan. 25, 1917: This case again raises the question of dependency of parents upon the contributions of a deceased and the right of compensation therefor. There seems to exist some misunderstanding of the rules laid down by the Board in the case of Johnson vs. Bethlehem Steel Company. The opinion in that case grew out of the reluctancy of the Board to sustain a finding against a defendant based entirely upon the unsupported, self-serving declarations of a claimant. We have at all times been keen to secure compensation to deserving claimants through the administration of this law, but at the same time we have ever been mindful of the fact that compensation law is not based upon charity nor is it an insurance scheme by which those who are injured can always be allowed compensation. On the other hand we know that a compensation iaw must be equally well balanced, its judgments must be based upon good and substantial testimony and there must be no money taken from an employer and paid to an injured employe without due process of law. A compensation law to survive the stress of the financial obligations incident to its enforcement and to become thoroughly fortified by public opinion, must be administered by agencies ever mindful of these principles, who are ready to decide all questions in conformity with the science of the law and the rules of evidence. The case of Johnson vs. Bethlehem Steel Company was a notice to our Referees that we considered it very dangerous practice to be satisfied with the naked statement of a claimant to the effect that he or she was dependent upon the contributions of the deceased at the time of his death. Defendants would thus be rendered helpless and would have no way of contradicting such statements, and, therefore, we suggested that these naked statements were very susceptible of corroboration by introduction into the evidence of some of the mathematics of the cost of living compared with the revenue of the family. The rule in the Johnson case was not for the purpose of defeating these claimants but to point out a way to them how their statements can be fortified and corroborated by a very simple process. Dependency is a question of fact. The contributions of a deceased child either as a minor or when of age raise no presumptions. In the case under consideration the Referee went thoroughly into the evidence touching this dependency, called the number of witnesses, has intelligently discussed their testimony in his report and has concluded that the claimants were dependent to a certain extent at least, upon the deceased at the time of his death and has made his award accordingly. We abide by his findings of fact and affirm his conclusions of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. CASES NOT ELSEWHERE REPORTED. First District-Wm. B. Scott, Referee. Claim Petition No. 1346. Max Grossman vs. Abe Shemfield. Claim Petition withdrawn. C. P. No. 1536. Carl Schneider vs. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co. Compensation awarded. C. P. No. 1673. Edward Hofferman vs. Joseph Peterson. Claim petition withdrawn. C. P. No. 1762. Florence C. Moore vs. City of Philadelphia. Compensation awarded. C. P. No. 1781. Angelo Faransosoangeli vs. Phila. Paper Mfg. Co. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1784. Samuel Blumkin vs. Sam Milgram. Compensation awarded. C. P. No. 1789. Harry Troupe vs. National Metal Box Co. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1794. Joseph Fink vs. H. Daroff & Sons. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1818. Herbert L. Aff vs. George W. Blabon Co. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1827. Tony Rutkowski vs. Wm. and Harvey Bowland, Inc. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1830. William Georg vs. Sam Middleberg. Claim petition withdrawn. C. P. No. 1836. John Varbitsh vs. United Gas Improvement Co. Dismissed for non-appearance of claimant. C. P. No. 1840. justed by agreement. C. P. No. 1963. David D. Drubert vs. Worth Bros. Ad Harry Simmers vs. Pennsylvania Rail road. Claim petition withdrawn. Compensation Agreement No. 8814. Dallis Chambers vs. Walter Ryan & Company. Compensation continued. Compensation Agreement No. 16743. Harry Jensen vs. D. B. Martin Company. Petition withdrawn. Compensation Agreement No. 18269. Hugh H. Fichlin vs. United Lead Company. Petition withdrawn. First District-Geo. C. Klauder, Referee. C. P. No. 1061. John O'Dare vs. Terminal Warehouse & Transfer Co. Compensation disallowed. C. P. No. 1259. Frank Mirra vs. Ira N. Eaton. Compensation awarded. C. P. No. 1500. James Nevin vs. Bell's Bakery. Dismissed for non-appearance of claimant. C. P. No. 1550. Julius L. Malcolm vs. State Workmen's Insurance Fund. Adjusted by agreement. C. P. No. 1579. Thomas Fox vs. Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. Claim Petition withdrawn. C. P. No. 1640. Charles Burrows vs. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Compensation disallowed. |