# Young v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 5, 2006 · 589 Pa. 362

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962801

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles YOUNG, Arlene Young, Widow v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ZINC CORPORATION OF AMERICA). Petition of Zinc Corporation of America
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 5, 2006
- **Citations:** 589 Pa. 362; 909 A.2d 300; 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1897; 2006 WL 2844187
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962801

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 5th day of October 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, as to the following three issues:
Did the Commonwealth Court err in imposing an award of benefits upon a decedent’s last employer and violate petitioner’s substantive due process rights when the WCJ found, based upon credible medical testimony, that the minimal exposure to asbestos during the statutory manifestation period was not a cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma?
Did the Commonwealth Court err in its interpretation of the presumption of causation found in Section 301(e) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. 413, by requiring the employer to prove that a non-occupational exposure to asbestos caused the decedent’s mesothelioma?
Did the Commonwealth Court deviate from orderly judicial practices by granting a lifetime claim petition that had been abandoned earlier in the proceedings especially when the issue was not preserved on appeal?
The Motion to Correct or Modify the Record is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962801. Public record. Not legal advice.