Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Eugene Hoyman v. L.E. Smith Glass Co., No. A-88138.
Fred C. Trenor, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, for petitioners.
E. David Harr, for respondent, Eugene Hoyman.
Judges Craig and Doyle, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 268]
L.E. Smith Glass Company and its workmen's compensation insurer, Northwestern National Insurance
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 269]
Company, (Petitioners) petition for review of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming an award of workmen's compensation benefits to Eugene Hoyman (Claimant). We affirm.
Claimant was employed as a glass gatherer by the petitioner glass company for approximately nine years. As a gatherer, Claimant's job entailed continually inserting a six-foot metal putty ball rod into a furnace in front of which he stood, gathering molten glass into the putty ball, removing the rod and pouring the molten glass into molds. The temperature of the furnace reached 1800 degrees, and the Claimant at times was subjected to heavy smoke from the furnace and the molds.
On March 2, 1982, Claimant was working the 3:30 p.m.-to-midnight shift. After taking a scheduled break, Claimant returned to work, but became weak and experienced chest pains. Claimant was taken and admitted to Latrobe Area Hospital where he was diagnosed as having coronary artery heart disease with angina. On March 8, he was transferred to Shadyside Hospital where he underwent cardiac catheterization and was diagnosed as having arteriosclerotic heart disease with unstable angina.
On August 20, 1982, Claimant filed a petition for workmen's compensation benefits. Following a series of hearings, the referee issued a decision in favor of Claimant, finding that while Claimant did not suffer a heart attack on March 2, 1982, he did have developmental arteriosclerotic heart disease which was aggravated by his work as a glass gatherer and which rendered him disabled. The Board affirmed, and from this Petitioners appeal.
Petitioners first contend that no substantial evidence supported the referee's finding that Claimant's work activities caused his ...