Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SPARTAN ABRASIVE COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/28/79)

decided: August 28, 1979.

SPARTAN ABRASIVE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD, ROBERT E. PHILLIPS AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Robert E. Phillips v. Spartan Abrasive Company, Inc., No. A-72766.

COUNSEL

Ronald Ganassi, with him Will & Keisling for petitioner.

John Moschetta, with him C. Jerome Moschetta, for respondents.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 251]

Spartan Abrasive Company, Inc. (employer), a manufacturer of abrasive wheels for the steel industry, has appealed from an award of workmen's compensation benefits to Robert E. Phillips (claimant) pursuant to Section 108(n) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 1 of the

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 252]

Act of October 17, 1972, P.L. 930, 77 P.S. ยง 27.1(n). We affirm.

The only issue raised by the employer is whether or not claimant established by sufficient, competent evidence that he suffers from an occupational disease, defined in Section 108(n) to include all diseases "(1) to which the claimant is exposed by reason of his employment, and (2) which are causally related to the industry or occupation, (3) the incidence of which is substantially greater in that industry or occupation than in the general population."

In Fruehauf Corp., Independent Metal Division v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 341, 345-48, 376 A.2d 277, 279-81 (1977), we made the following observations concerning Section 108(n):

The subsection contains three requirements. First, it requires that a claimant be exposed to a disease by reason of his employment. . . . To satisfy this requirement, a claimant may reasonably identify or describe the causative factors of the disease, demonstrate that the factors are significantly present in his employment, and show that he was exposed to this significant presence.

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 253]

The claimant must also demonstrate that the disease is causally related to the industry or occupation and that the incidence of the disease is substantially greater in the industry or occupation than in the general population. These requirements serve to establish the occupational impact of the disease and to distinguish those diseases which are not occupational in nature. Accordingly, evidence of the conditions in the industry or occupation is necessary; it is not enough ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.