Court Opinion

ID: 9635219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:42:13.356549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:41.730153
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s determination that this claimant failed to show a substantially greater risk of contracting ocular histoplasmosis in the poultry industry and thus failed to meet the requirements of section 108(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, I disagree with its remand for purposes of determining whether this claimant could recover under section 301(c) of the Act for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450, 525 A.2d 1204 (1987).