380 A.2d 940
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.Argued October 31, 1977
December 15, 1977.
Appeals — Workmen’s compensation — Partial disposition — Interlocutory order — Remand.
1. An appeal should not be allowed in a workmen’s compensation case after only one issue has been decided when there remains another issue for disposition below. 
2. An order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board remanding a case to a referee for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law is interlocutory and unappealable. 
Argued October 31, 1977, before Judges WILKINSON, JR. and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of two.
Appeals, Nos. 2225 and 2245 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in case of James Corcoran, Jr. v. ABC Security, Inc. and Action Industries, Inc., No. A-71689.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen’s compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employers appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed as to one employer. Case remanded. One employer and claimant filed petition for review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Appeal quashed. Petition for reargument filed and denied. Amended order issued.
Elmer G. Klaber, for Action Industries, Inc. and Zurich Insurance Company.
Richard L. McMillan, with him Chester S. Fossee, for ABC Security, Inc. and Rockwood Insurance Company.
Amiel B. Caromanna, Jr., with him Alexander J. Pentecost, for James Corcoran, Jr.
PER CURIAM OPINION, December 15, 1977:
Action Industries, Inc. and Zurich Insurance Company (Appellants) have appealed an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board). Two issues were disposed of in the order. The Board decided one issue contrary to Appellants. The second issue, which dealt with the extent of the claimant’s disability, was remanded to the referee for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellant’s procedure of appealing prior to the disposition of the second issue can result in appellate review of this case by installments. This the courts have never encouraged. See International Electronics Co. v. N.S.T. Metal Products Co., Inc., 365 Pa. 173, 74 A.2d 168 (1950). The Board’s remand order was clearly interlocutory and therefore we quash this appeal sua sponte. See Judge ROGERS’ discussion in Gilroy v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 32 Pa. Commw. 152, 377 A.2d 1302 (1977).
NOW, December 15, 1977, the appeals of Action Industries, Inc. and Zurich Insurance Company and James Corcoran, Jr. are hereby ordered quashed.
PER CURIAM OPINION, January 25, 1978:
On December 15, 1977 this Court entered its order quashing the above appeals on the ground that the
order of remand in No. 2245 Commonwealth Docket 1976 was interlocutory and that both appeals should be heard at once. We now have before us an application for reargument which inter alia, points out that our order could result in No. 2225 Commonwealth Docket 1976 never being argued on appeal. In order to remove any doubt that the appeal in No. 2225 Commonwealth Docket 1976 is preserved for argument we will enter the following
AND NOW, January 25, 1978, the application for reargument in the above matter is denied and that portion of our December 15, 1977 Order which quashed the appeal in No. 2225 Commonwealth Docket 1976 as being interlocutory is modified to the extent that said appeal in No. 2225 Commonwealth Docket 1976 will be held in abeyance pending a determination as to whether No. 2245 Commonwealth Docket 1976 is to be argued before this Court.