Anderson Mechanical, Inc. v. Spiegel

11 I must respectfully dissent. I do not concur in that part of the majority's opinion which holds 85 0.S. § 11(B)(5) was correctly applied.1 That subsection was not the law at the definitive time here, that is, May, 2000, the time at which Claimant first became aware his injuries were employment related.

{2 The majority's rationale for holding § 11(B)(5) applicable is unsupportable under a close examination of applicable law. The majority's reliance on § 11(B)(5) is based on [1] Claimant working for Employer when he was "last hazardously exposed to the repetitive-trauma dealing conditions of…