Morton Craine, Herman Toll, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Frank R. Ambler, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before Hirt, Acting P. J., and Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ.
[ 176 Pa. Super. Page 451]
This case arises under the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566; 77 P.S. § 1201 et seq. The question presented is whether the claimant was exposed to the hazard of silica for a sufficient period of time to entitle him to receive compensation under the Act.
Section 301(d) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 1401(d), provides as follows: 'Compensation for silicosis or anthraco-silicosis, and asbestosis, shall be paid only when it is shown that the employe has had an aggregate employment of at least four years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, during a period of eight years next preceding the date of disability, in an occupation having a silica or asbestos hazard.'
Thus the Act imposes upon the claimant the burden of proving employment in an occupation having a silica hazard for that period. Sulewski v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 1951, 168 Pa. Super. 346, 77 A.2d 715.
The referee found that the claimant failed to prove an exposure to silicosis, and disallowed compensation.
The board likewise denied compensation, finding 'that the claimant was not exposed to a silica hazard for an aggregate period of four years during the eight years next preceding the date of disability.'
On appeal the Court of Common Pleas sustained the board.
Upon review the question to be resolved by the appellate court is 'whether the board's findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and its order, and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of the competent evidence.' Walsh v. Penn ...