Court Opinion

ID: 9758198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:15:23.632024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.813744
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
In my view all the compensation benefits, in both the Utter and Bambrick cases, awarded by the referee, *411adopted by tbe Workmen’s Compensation Board, and affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia are fully supported by the record. These findings of fact by the compensation authorities are correct and should govern the disposition of these cases. See Bambrick v. Asten-Hill Mfg. Co., 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 664, 671, 291 A. 2d 354, 357 (1972) (Kramer, J., dissenting, joined by Crumlish, J.).
I therefore agree with only that portion of the majority’s mandate which reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order and reinst ates the Board’s award. In doing so, I do not accept the majority’s construction of sections 108(1) and 301 (e) of The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 566, §§108(1), 301(e), as amended, 77 P.S. §§1208(1), 1401 (e) 1952). The majority’s disposition of the dependency benefit claims of Margaret Utter and Alice Barn-brick can rest solely upon its interpretation of Section 1208(n), The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act, as amended, Act of February 28, 1956, P. L. (1955) 1095, §1, 77 P.S. §1208 (n) (Supp. 1973). By construing sections 108 (1) and 301 (e), the majority decides an issue it need not reach.
I dissent from the majority’s refusal to reverse the Commonwealth Court’s denial of the benefits awarded by the compensation authorities. I would reinstate the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s award of compensation benefits for disability suffered by decedent, Robert Utter, during his lifetime.
Mr. Justice Mandhrino joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.