Opinion
Argued October 1, 1979
November 15, 1979.
Workmen's compensation — Occupational disease — Characteristics of disease — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review — Capricious disregard of competent evidence.
1. A decision by workmen's compensation authorities that an employe seeking occupational disease benefits has failed to meet his burden of proving that his disease was peculiar to his occupation by the characteristics of its manifestation will not be disturbed on appeal when the fact finder did not capriciously disregard competent evidence in reaching that result. [334]
Argued October 1, 1979, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., WILKINSON, JR. and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 65 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in case of Charles R. Williams v. Spaulding Bakeries, Inc., No. A-73508.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for occupational disease disability benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer and insurer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Employer and insurer appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Award affirmed. Employer and insurer appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Decision reversed. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Order vacated. Case remanded. Benefits denied by referee. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Denial affirmed. TOOLE, J. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Frank Bognet, with him Israel T. Klapper, for appellant.
Sandra S. Christianson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee, Commonwealth.
James P. Harris, Jr., for appellee, Spaulding Bakeries, Inc.
This is an appeal from an opinion and order of the Honorable PATRICK J. TOOLE of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County which affirmed an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirming a referee's order denying benefits.
As noted in Judge TOOLE's opinion, this case is before us a second time as the result of proceedings following a remand order of our Supreme Court. Williams v. Spaulding Bakeries, Inc., 464 Pa. 29, 346 A.2d 3 (1975). The narrow specific issue to be decided on remand was whether Claimant's disease was peculiar to his occupation by the "characteristics of its manifestation," a test first set forth in Utter v. Asten-Hill Mfg. Co., 453 Pa. 401, 309 A.2d 583 (1973).
After a hearing, the referee found that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that his disease was peculiar by the characteristics of its manifestation. The Board affirmed that conclusion. On appeal, the trial court accurately described its scope of review and concluded that neither the referee nor the Board had capriciously disregarded competent evidence in reaching that result. Our own careful review of the record leads us to the same conclusion.
In our judgment, Judge TOOLE's opinion has ably resolved the only issue presented by the remand order from the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we will affirm on the opinion of the trial court reported at 69 Luzerne 10 (1978).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 1979, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, dated December 11, 1978, is affirmed.