analogizing long-term exposure to noise as a series of incidents that ultimately lead to the injury, i.e., hearing loss
How later courts described this case
- analogizing long-term exposure to noise as a series of incidents that ultimately lead to the injury, i.e., hearing loss
- That which distinguishes an accident from other events is the element of being unforeseen, quoting Lacey v. Washburn & Williams Company, 309 Pa. 574, 578, 164 A. 724, 725 (1933)
- mechanic in can-making factory suffered “accident” by sustaining unexpected loss of hearing performing his normal job
- loss of hearing due to loud working place
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
I join the Opinion of the Court, but believe that Mauchline v. State Insurance Fund, 279 Pa. 524 , 124 A.2d 168 (1924), should be explicitly overruled. Since the decision of Mauchline a half-century ago, the developments, both statutory and decisional, in the law of Workmen’s Compensation have been steadily away from the restrictive construction there applied to the Act. Consequently, the authority of Mauchline has been steadily eroded and it is clear to me that it has now been implicitly overruled. The orderly and effective administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the prompt and correct determination of claims under the Act would best be advanced by declaring specifically that the doctrine of Mauchline should no longer be followed.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.