Appeals — Final or interlocutory order — Order remanding record in workmen's compensation case to board for additional findings of fact.
Although an order of the court of common pleas remanding the record in a workmen's compensation case to the board for additional findings of fact is generally considered interlocutory, the appellate court is not without power to review it.
Argued December 12, 1966.
OPINION PER CURIAM, March 23, 1967:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, remitting the record in a workmen's compensation case to the Board for additional findings of fact.
Although orders of this character are generally considered interlocutory, Wilk v. The Budd Company, 174 Pa. Super. 108, 100 A.2d 127 (1953), we are not without power to review them. Barber v. Fleming-Raugh, Inc., 208 Pa. Super. 230, 222 A.2d 423 (1966); Rozauski v. Glen Alden Coal Company, 165 Pa. Super. 460, 69 A.2d 192 (1949).
After thorough and independent study, we are of the opinion that the record before us is sufficient to permit the lower court to decide the case on the merits. The order of the lower court is therefore reversed, and the record is remanded to it for that purpose.