# Landis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 8, 1987 · 515 Pa. 41

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635219

## Case

- **Full name:** Dennis L. LANDIS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (HERSHEY EQUIPMENT CO.). Appeal of HERSHEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 8, 1987
- **Citations:** 515 Pa. 41; 526 A.2d 778; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 727
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9635219

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the claimant failed to show a greater incidence of histoplasmosis, an eye disease, in poultry work

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635219. Public record. Not legal advice.