Young v. W.C.A.B. (Zinc Corp. of America), 41 WAP 2006.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 922 A.2d 891 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 41 WAP 2006.,41 WAP 2006. |
| Parties | Charles YOUNG, Deceased, Arlene Young, Widow v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ZINC CORPORATION OF AMERICA) Appeal of Zinc Corporation of America. |
v.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ZINC CORPORATION OF AMERICA)
Appeal of Zinc Corporation of America.
Appeal No. 41 WAP 2006 from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered April 5, 2006 at No. 1753 CD 2005, reversing the Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered August 3, 2005 at No. A04-1485. 897 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth.2006).
Jeanette Hsin Ho, Esq., Louis C. Long, Esq., Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, for Zinc Corporation of America.
Amber Marie Kenger, Esq., Richard C. Lengler, Esq., for Workers' Compensation Appeal Board.
Daniel King Bricmont, Esq., Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, L.L.C., Pittsburgh, for Charles Young.
Thomas W. Corbett, Esq., Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER and BALDWIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed with the caveat that the Commonwealth Court shall modify its Order to specify that the calculation and award of benefits should not include any award for lifetime claim benefits as claimant conceded that she was discontinuing her claim for lifetime benefits.
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring statement in which Justice BALDWIN joins.
Justice SAYLOR, concurring.
I join the majority disposition of this appeal, because I believe that it effectuates a plain-meaning application of Section 301(c)(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 411(2). I write only to note that Employer's substantive due process
argument gives me pause, since the plain-meaning interpretation of Section 301(c)(2) eliminates (or at least severely restricts) the conventional workers' compensation concept of employer-specific work relatedness in the occupational disease setting. I believe, however, that any developed discussion of substantive due process relative to workers' compensation would need to encompass a discussion of the trilogy of decisions in which the United States Supreme Court, in very general terms, approved the basic loss-spreading scheme inherent in the general workers' compensation concept as consistent with constitutional due process norms. See New York Central R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917); Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210, 37 S.Ct. 255, 61 L.Ed. 678 (1917); Mountain Timber...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiLaqua v. City of Philadelphia Fire Department, 1262 C.D. 2020
...v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Zinc Corp. of America) , 897 A.2d 530, 534-35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff'd as modified , 592 Pa. 40, 922 A.2d 891 (2007) :Despite language in the Act and case law generally stating that eligibility for compensation depends upon proof of disability, which ......
-
DiLaqua v. City of Philadelphia Fire Dep't (Workers' Comp. Appeal Board), 1262 C.D. 2020
...ruled, in Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Zinc Corp. of America), 897 A.2d 530, 534-35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff'd as modified, 922 A.2d 891 (Pa. 2007): Despite language in the Act and case law generally that eligibility for compensation depends upon proof of disability, which is......
-
Bernauer v. Tinicum Twp. (Workers' Comp. Appeal Board), 943 C.D. 2020
...Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Zinc Corporation of America), 897 A.2d 530, 534-35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff'd as modified, 922 A.2d 891 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted and emphasis added); see DiLaqua v. City of Philadelphia Fire Department (Workers' Compensation Appeal Board), __......
-
City of Chester v. Gresch, 1040 C.D. 2021
...relies on Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Zinc Corp. of America), 897 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), affirmed as modified, 922 A.2d 891 (Pa. 2007).[11] Section 301(c)(2) of the Act limits employer liability to occupational disease that manifests within 300 weeks of a claimant's w......