holding that the 300-week period of Section 301(c)(2) begins to run on the date of exposure rather than the date of the claimant’s last employment
How later courts described this case
- holding that the 300-week period of Section 301(c)(2) begins to run on the date of exposure rather than the date of the claimant’s last employment
- reiterating that “relevant employment is employment in which a worker is exposed to the hazard of occupational disease” and describing our reasoning in Avalotis as “impeccable”
- reasoning that “period of exposure, not the total period of employment, is the governing factor”
- "[t]he three-hundred week period prescribed in [Section 301(c)(2
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the Commonwealth Court.
CASTILLE, J., joins this dissenting opinion.