Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Walker Stephens v. Henry Paul Cadillac, Inc., No. A-86629.
William F. Sweeney, with him, Alfonso M. Salazar Schubert, Bellwoar, Mallon & Walheim, for petitioner.
Michael D. Schaff, Fine and Staud, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers. Judge Barry did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 362]
Henry Paul Cadillac, Inc. (employer) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (board) affirming the referee's order awarding Walker Stephens (claimant) compensation benefits and attorney's fees.
In August, 1980, while working for the employer as a car washer, the claimant experienced an outbreak of contact dermatitis. His employer filed a Notice of Compensation Payable. The claimant signed a final receipt of workmen's compensation when he returned to work in October, 1980. In April, 1982, he again got contact dermatitis. He filed a claim petition which was treated by the referee as a petition for reinstatement.
At the hearing conducted by the referee, the claimant's medical witness, Dr. Roy Kinder, testified that the claimant's contact dermatitis in 1982 resulted from an allergen at work. Dr. Kinder explained that in July and August 1982 he performed patch tests with cleaners that the claimant obtained from the work site and he found that the claimant was allergic to two solutions, Ardex shampoo and a fabric cleaner.
The referee reinstated benefits and awarded attorney's fees to the claimant. The board affirmed and the employer appeals from the board's order.
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 363]
The employer contends that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the hearing to support the referee's finding that the recurrence of dermatitis was work-related. It challenges the referee's findings of fact number four which states:
4. On April 8, 1982, Claimant suffered a reoccurrence of his injury of August 16, 1980 in the course of his employment when he suffered a reoccurrence of the allergic contact dermatitis caused by the use of the Ardex shampoo.
The employer notes that the claimant testified at the hearing that he did not use Ardex shampoo after he returned to work on October 8, 1980. So far as the record shows, he may have continued to use the fabric cleaner which Dr. Kinder says proved to be more toxic than Ardex. The employer argues from this that there was thus no evidence in the record to ...