Court Opinion

ID: 9766469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:50:10.893485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:22.985250
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I see no difference between repairs to a ship tethered to land and repairs to a barge tethered to land. In Sun Ship, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715, 100 S.Ct. 2432, 65 L.Ed.2d 458 (1980), the United States Supreme Court permitted workers injured while repairing a ship to seek compensation for their injuries through the Longshoremen and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) and our Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the case sub judice, the function performed by the claimant was identical in that he was repairing a barge tethered to the shore. I cannot fathom the gyrations performed by the majority to avoid the obvious.
I find no error of law, or a violation of Board procedure, and I find that the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Our scope of review is satisfied and we *341must affirm. The learned Commonwealth Court has done its job well and I concur in its conclusion. I, therefore, am compelled to dissent and I would affirm on the basis of the excellent opinion of the Commonwealth Court.