Court Opinion

ID: 9759009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:59:59.097169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:58.087028
License: Public Domain

*469Dissenting Opinion by
Senior Judge Kalish:
I respectfully dissent.
In addition to challenging the referees findings, Petitioner argues that the Board erred in foiling to consider his claim under Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 PS. §411, as well as under Section 108(n) of the Act, 77 P.S. §27.1, relying on Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 270, 473 A.2d 260 (1984), and Hayden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 451, 479 A.2d 631 (1984). The majority distinguishes this case from Pawlosky and Hayden on the grounds that in both of those cases the referee found that the claimants had suffered a work related injury. The majority states that in this case the referee found that Petitioners condition was not work related. Thus, the majority concludes that if there is no work related injury, there can be no compensation under the Act.
I believe the referees findings are insufficient to justify the legal conclusion that Petitioner is ineligible for compensation under Section 301(c) of the Act. The referee found that Petitioner had been diagnosed as having emphysema, related to cigarette smoking, and that Petitioner had been diagnosed as being allergic to cat and dog dander, chickens, house dust, trees, grasses and ragweed. The referee dismissed the claim because Petitioner foiled to establish that the incidence of his ailment was substantially greater in his occupation than in the general population, as required by Section 108(n) of the Act.
The referees finding that Petitioners condition was not work related, which the majority relies on, referred to the emphysema and allergies. However, the referees findings are silent as to the crucial question of whether *470Petitioner suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing disease. In Pawbsky the referee did find that the claimant had suffered a work related aggravation of a pre-existing disease, and in Hayden the referee did find that the claimant had a work related illness. However, here there are no findings as to whether Petitioners bronchial asthma constituted a work related aggravation of a pre-existing disease. Accordingly, I would remand this matter for a determination of whether the conditions of the workplace aggravated Petitioners pre-existing ailments.