Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of William W. Boyle v. KTG Glassworks Technology, Inc., Songer Construction Company, Andco Incorporated, Eichleay Corporation, Chiz Brothers, Inc., Koppers Company, Inc., and Furnco Construction Company, No. A-90760 and C.C.A-90777.
Francis J. DiSalle, Herrington and Grater, for petitioners.
John W. McTiernan, with him, William R. Caroselli, Caroselli, Spagnolli & Beachler, for William W. Boyle, respondent.
Eugene F. Scanlon, Jr., Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for Chiz Brothers, Inc., respondent.
Francis E. Pipak, Jr., with him, J. Gregory Giannuzzi, for KTG Glassworks Technology, Inc., respondent.
Joseph F. Grochmal, Fried, Kane, Walters & Zuschlag, for Furnco Construction Co., respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., and Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Barbieri.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 163]
Koppers Company, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company, seek review by this Court of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed a referee's decision awarding benefits for disability from silicosis designating Koppers as the solely responsible employer under the terms of Sections 108(k) and 301(c)(2) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. §§ 27.1, 411. We will affirm.
Claimant, William W. Boyle, described as an industrial bricklayer, carried out this occupation in construction trades for a period from 1946 until September 13, 1983 for many employers, including several named as defendants in these proceedings. There seems to be little contest that Claimant is disabled because of lung diseases principally due to exposure to silica and possibly asbestos with some complication due to a smoking habit. The contest before us appears to be mainly on liability as between two of the named defendants, Koppers Company, Inc., and Chiz Brothers, Inc. Koppers, the last employer for whom Claimant worked a period of a year, from April 1981 through October of 1982, during which time he was exposed to dusts mostly created by silica products being used in the construction of coke ovens.*fn1 Claimant thereafter worked for KTG Glassworks
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 164]
Technology and Chiz Brothers, consecutively, Chiz Brothers is raised by Petitioner, Koppers, on its contention that the medical testimony indicates the presence of both silicosis, an enumerated occupational disease, Section 108(k), and asbestosis, another enumerated disease, Section 108(1), whereas the referee's award is solely against Koppers under Section 108(k) for silicosis, silica dust being Claimant's only exposure in his employment with Koppers, and this was affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. In Section 301(c)(2) of the Act, as to occupational disease disabilities under Section 108(k) for silicosis, or under Section 108(1) for asbestosis, it is provided that the liable employer be the one "in whose employment the employe was last exposed for a period of not less than one year to the hazard of the occupational disease claimed . . .," but the section provides further that
In the event the employe did not work in an exposure at least one year for any employer during the three hundred week period prior to disability or death, the employer liable for the compensation shall be that employer giving the longest period of employment in ...