The opinion
Opinion by
Judge Kramer,
The record in this case indicates that the claim petition involved was filed under the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act 1 and that the petition was never amended. Despite this fact, the referee awarded benefits under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, 2 and the Board affirmed.
This case is controlled by our recent decisions holding that the referee and the Board may not award benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when a claim petition is filed under the Occupational Disease Act, and never amended. 3 Since the referee and the Board erred by awarding benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, we will remand to the Board for a proper determination pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act.
We therefore
Order
And Now this 14th day of January, 1976, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the *3 above matter is hereby reversed and it is ordered that this case be remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for a proper determination pursuant to the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act; such additional evidence may be received as the Board, in its discretion, deems necessary.
. Act of July 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended, 77 P.S. §1201 et seq.
. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq.
. O’Donnell v. City of Scranton, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 411 , 349 A.2d 502 (1975); Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. City of Hazleton, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522 , 347 A.2d 332 (1975); and Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Wlodarczyk, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 495 , 347 A.2d 763 (1975).