Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoosier Engineering Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 2, 1993Published

1DissentDoyle, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

Under Section 301(c)(2) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act),1 the employer liable for the payment of benefits is “that employer giving the longest period of *237employment in which the employe was exposed to the hazards of the disease claimed.”

I believe the proper reading of this language of the Act requires that liability be imposed on the employer providing the “longest period or term of employment,” a quantitive standard, and not, as the majority interprets the language, the employer who provided the longest period of exposure, a qualitative measurement.

S…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board of the Commonwealth v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Industrial Services Contracting, Inc. v. WilsonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Marcucci v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Jones & Langhlin Steel Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Adams Steel Erection, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API