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
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
Mr. Landis lost the sight of his right eye because of a condition associated with his work environment. This fact is uncontroverted in the record and acknowledged by the majority (p. 42-44). In my opinion, it is totally irrelevant *47 whether the incidence of this disease (presumed ocular histoplasmosis) is substantially greater in the claimant’s occupation at chicken houses than in the general population. Such proof is required only when causation is questionable and the disease could have been contracted in the general population, and it is not an uncontroverted fact that the disease was contracted in the work place.
It insults the integrity of our work force when we admit their disease is work related, but we deny them benefits because their disease is also 'catchable’ in the general population. I do not believe that Section 108(n) was ever intended to defeat a proven claim of a diseased condition caused in the work place.
And then, again, we insult the intelligence of the people when we demand proof that there are substantially more chickens in the chicken houses than there are in the general populace.