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.

WALTER LONG v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANCHOR CONTAINER CORPORATION) (02/21/86)

decided: February 21, 1986.

WALTER LONG, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANCHOR CONTAINER CORPORATION), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Walter Long v. Anchor Container Corporation, No. A-85982.

COUNSEL

Thomas F. McDevitt, Thomas F. McDevitt, P.C., for petitioner.

Alan H. Ross, Thompson and Pennell, for respondent, Anchor Container Corporation.

Judges MacPhail and Doyle, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 244]

Walter Long (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the referee's decision denying Claimant benefits under Section 108 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ยง 27.1.

Claimant was employed by Anchor Container Corp. (Employer) as a die mounter and press helper from April 1970 through June 7, 1979. After Claimant started work on June 7, 1979, he experienced chest pains, difficulty in breathing, nausea and dizziness. Claimant informed the assistant foreman he was dizzy and not feeling well and a co-worker took Claimant to the hospital. Claimant was placed in the coronary care unit. Dr. Neal Krouse, Claimant's treating physician, later diagnosed Claimant as suffering from anterior chest wall syndrome, bronchial asthma, chronic pulmonary disorder and severe anxiety.

Claimant filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits under the occupational disease provisions of the Act. After several hearings, the referee found the following facts:

2. Most of Claimant's duties included using solvent in the process of cleaning rubber dies which were used in printing on corrugated cartons. In cleaning the dies Claimant would dip a scrubbing brush into the solvent and then rub it over the die. He would then blow the solvent off the die with an air hose. When using the air hose to clean the die, he would blow the material away from him, and it would blow back into his face. (N.T. January 12, 1981 at 15).

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 245]

While working with the solvent, Claimant inhaled its fumes. (Id. at 45).

3. The referee accepts the testimony of Defendant's production manager, William Marshall, that the only solvents used by Claimant were 'Tower 399' and occasionally kerosene. Claimant did not use solvents which were ether based, nor did he use benzene or mineral spirits. (N.T. May 15, 1981 at 5-6).

5. Claimant has failed to convince the referee that he suffered 'poisoning' due to his occasional exposure to kerosene, which is a hydrocarbon and thus a chemical included in Section 108(c) of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act. Claimant has also failed to convince the referee that he suffered any other ...


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.