# 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/9635220

## 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 Papadakos
- **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/9635220

## 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

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635220. Public record. Not legal advice.