Claim of Leveski v. Dic Underhill Joint Venture

Mikoll, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The board’s denial of claimant’s application for reopening was arbitrary and capricious. Claimant’s application was supported by a C-27 “change in condition” form signed by his treating physician. Thereon it is indicated that claimant is “totally” (emphasis added) disabled by reason of his silicosis condition. At the initial hearing, his doctor at the time found him to be only partially disabled from silicosis. Other experts indicated that there was no such pulmonary disability attributable to silicosis. The board adopted the latter view. The…