holding that the claimant failed to show a greater incidence of histoplasmosis, an eye disease, in poultry work
How later courts described this case
- holding that the claimant failed to show a greater incidence of histoplasmosis, an eye disease, in poultry work
- remanding the matter to the WCAB for a new hearing to determine whether the claimant’s eye disease constituted an “injury” under section 301(c)(1) and Pawlosky
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s determination that this claimant failed to show a substantially greater risk of contracting ocular histoplasmosis in the poultry industry and thus failed to meet the requirements of section 108(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, I disagree with its remand for purposes of determining whether this claimant could recover under section 301(c) of the Act for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987).