Document GKOVOjxz8kMdKVR4k4E8voJgY
FILE NAME: Baldwin (BALD) DATE: 1946 DOC#: BALD059 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Bingaman vs. Baldwin Appeal Decision
512 Pa-
46 A TLA N TIC R EPO R TER, 2d S E R IE S
AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. V. UNEMPLOY MENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania. April 17, 1946.
Master and servant <3=78 A determination of the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review that five
pany v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Pa.Super., 46 A.2d 510. The board held that in the circumstances prevailing at the time the offered employ ment was refused five days in which to find suitable work was not a reasonable time. In that conclusion we cannot dis cover an error of law.
Decision affirmed.
days did not allow a welder-who had there tofore been employed at $1.10 per hour a reasonable time in which to secure suit able work was not an error of law.
iiumbeb srstafr
Appeal No. 133, April term, 1946, from BINGAMAN v. BALDWIN LOCOMOTIVE
the decision of the Unemployment Com
WORKS, Inc., et al.
pensation Board of Review upon the claim of Evelyn Theresa Davis, at Appeal No.
Appeal of OLDT.
B-44-94-A-3043, Decision No. B-4707.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Proceeding under the Unemployment
April 12, 194G.
Compensation Law by Evelyn Theresa Davis, claimant, opposed by the American 1. Workmen's compensation <3=53
Bridge Company, employer. From a de
The Occupational Disease Act should
cision of the Unemployment Compensation be given the same liberal construction that
Board of Review allowing the claim, the has been given the Workmen's Compensa
employer appeals. Decision affirmed.
Before BA LD RIGE, P. J., and RHODES, HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and ARNOLD, JJ.
tion Act, but, where the requirements of the statute are clear, intention and meaning of the Legislature, as expressed therein, may not be ignored. 77 P.S. 1401 (d, g,>,
1408(a).
P. K. Motheral and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, for appellant.
R. Carlyle Fee, Asst. Sp. Deputy Atty. C-en., Charles R. Davis, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., and Jam es H. Duff, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
2. Workmen's compensation <3=549
While a claimant may combine periods of exposure to a silica hazard in order to reach the required aggregate, he may not include in the computation periods of em ployment in a different and nonhazardous occupation because he happens to have the
RENO, Judge.
same employer for both jobs.
In this unemployment compensation case 1401 (d, g).
77 P.S.
the board found that the claimant had been 3. Workmen's compensation <3=549
employed by appellant, American Bridge
Employment in an occupation having a
Company, as a welder at $1.10 per hour silica hazard exists only where an employee
from January 26, 1944 to June 15, 1945, is subjected to the hazard of exposure to
when she was laid off because of lack of work. On June 20, 1945, she was offered employment at a filling station at $18 per
week which she refused because the salary was too low. For this, the bureau dis allowed the worker's claim for benefits. Upon her appeal, the referee reversed the bureau, and the referee's decision was sus tained by the board upon the employer's ap
peal. The appeal raises the same questions de
cided this day in American Bridge Com-
the dust of silicon dioxide. 77 P.S. 1401 (d, g).
4. Workmen's compensation <3=549 Although the Occupational Disease
Act gives a claimant the benefit of any and all employment during a period of eight years preceding date of his disability due to silicosis, the aggregate employment for ;four years during the eight years must be in an occupation having a silica hazard. 77 P.S. 1401 (d, g).
>0 e Z u l u to
OTIVE am
B I X G A M A X v. B A L D W I N L O C O MO T I VE W O R K S Cite as l(j A.iM 51::
La. fri* *"
5. W orkmen `5 comp-;nsation C=4365
TT- we omt inuanon of a contract <: empa wm ut duci not determine a claim-
years nex: proce dlllg tl dan of din.bilnv.
in an occupation has 1:4 4 a si lica or asoefrto; hazard" f
mod r y a r lu reCO'.mr under the Occupatoo.tu D.-e aso Act for disability due to wueosn, i a: prour of tnc 5:l;ca hazard is a-; eswaOm! :mr: o r Claimant s case. //
P . v 1 U D ito
Dallas hi. Bin tpun n : hied a claim pen-
tie'll Oil SelKeUli ."r 9 TOO, and se- forth.
tin rein that lie 1):cai;v.: totali v di added on LLccmbcr 8 , L v 0 , a 3 a resi: lr n -' cilir'imU while in tile cour e ,, ;in cm; .'uvuiein; win;
6, W orkmen b corny nsation <W549
u
,;
.
,
1 . .^ <_111 [111 1 ' '.D
r ,die eight veers oreced.; l.:i. ms cmpnivnuun with
' . O W , - ;l
in''
jn ,, n
-,
-ma
.)
, `
o
;
r
c
" .
c
o
mo
e
m-
-an ti wa- 1i r ;>. f \ f*' 1 i U-rn fi' | . iR ()t-
,
' -1. L11 1 i)' ' ' !., . `. L11 S1..J...Lei
l
- - i 0 \ s' 1 -0 ! fd, .O, ! W D :.
defendant. The emp - yee di. :d on Decern-
her 6 . I'd 1 0 . and his 'Vidov.-, Dorm hv hi. I 0 UUS TO:u" 1 h n :o( a claii " 1), *-t-in i-.
Iv-U Us'. I DX ' : ror ;n.-r Ge[ wmaui: mun -r cnioIren on i -a , yj , 1941. T'lm -D- rV'--A
.1 r . i < i'l U'l i,'
n
i
orknma > (
1'ii v; ru !
tn e a wa r is an-1 tn-j innnnU'
of tact ami co:
:is o t
Ibo -
m b d d 9m
Disease i 1:
Id-Dre i: ALib RI DE. P. T.. a: id R HR D L L ,
H \ Rfie L Id
(j, Id I T U u r e i I. R ! is s , and
r
Id Brevr : Dr \ \dehe-- ham, 0 a i
A
w dekersha :n. a::id Hue Ite IL Du\ A ai! Oi' H a r m '.;ur n. and hi-.li;-y j'. 0. nnodi', of Sidmsyrov foT appe-ihITt'S. '
Baul 1 '
S.
L 4'urnan,
of
Lew: gt haWIl .
iL.a- ap-
p' :Uee.
RHOi.dEA. Ju dye.
The qtie mi on for do termi n; U n r i ori tins a r'peal has bd:en stipule. red as luliows : Did D alias i. I.Innyam.an's. empii mm ein with dcuendant san:s:;y the stau: i ury r e juireme-nt of ",an angregate employment of at le:am: four ars m the Coinn ionvvealth of h eruisylva! na tiring a per: od of eight
o: Lupon m an oc In u. m , ao o that his ru U1- ipue ut ib' ' '' We
u Inunuy a RiUkU. 11ai d n a l uL n caused s o h A by
d lie p.art iueu; ij ro v: us ox the IL:
v9a] :DadB'Ud, cmV .iLp.aticoouo.a, !are1Lar'a.arsacu"raApcat d oifa ' launnde
1c i o: s ec: ion 3dd
L T . Idmli d; i d s
an para panurn { a j 0 i s ec:.lull oAS, as in; ;l1' 1:a
Oil , 77 P.T . l+TS '. a.).
T 0 su sta in the aw ar;L it is IleCeiss.orv tii.at the Proofs ai id h :nps estaiuis'i: -u.ir
de eseased hrad had 1an a LL cyate emp:u\ orient or it least four you -S m tins Cum. mou\n un, dur mg a pcrio j cA eight yea r, next pr CC edui:r>/ 1*ns die; ibilii y, in an o c a r citron ha VI up a Si Lea hi. zartl a nd that defriadmit WLIS the !as;; empio' yer :n 1whose employm e nt dece ased v.uis exp'.oed to such hazard.
5 U
Pa-
4G A T L A N T I C R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R I E S
Appellant's contention is that deceased's ture, as expressed therein, may not be contract of employment continued with ignored.
defendant from May 11, 1934, until Decem ber S, 1939, a period of five and one-half years. Appellees assert that deceased s employment with defendant, in an occu pation having' a silica hazard, during the period of eight years next preceding De cember 8, 1939, the elate of his total dis ability, did not exceed three years, six
months, and twenty-four days.
[2] Plad deceased worked for derendant between the inters als of his employ ment as a chipper in another occupation having no silica hazard, there could be no recovery although he had been employed bv defendant for five and one-halt years between 1934 and 1939. In Tokash v. Early Foundry Co. e: ah, 157 Pa.Super. 467, at page 471, 43 A.2d 553, at page 554.
The referee and the board found that in an opinion by Judge Ross, we held:
during the period of eight years next pre "'While a claimant may combine periods
ceding December 8, 1939, Dallas M. Bmga- of exposure in order t:> reach the required
m:i:a actvallv worked in 1d e fetn !a OL b; found 1 ) aggregate, he may no: include in the com
dur lug the 0 Blowing periods <of time : i\i ay h , 1034, to October 15. 1934 I V bruary 4 193 5, to Tun e 13, P 'd.' : Api -il 9, 1936, to Turic 13. 193.S; Mav 1 , 1939, to an.d indud-
putation periods of employment [in] a
different and nun-hazardous occupation because he ha, .pens to have the same erapiover tor buih io h:."
Decern!; cr 8 , ih a '. Tin a! <o fou nd
tna : deceased workml for d 1cm ridant in 195"3. 1925 t... PCS. in l n_> ai in 193;i) ;
: during them pc is lie was employ C'.i in the capacmy of a cii roper tinu dur: ny tile eight ; ears pr e C v diny Dec ember w 1 T :id, he ha 1 no e: npi wire; U ot her th an
wi: ii defend nr. with th e ex eU; :w 1 O I 111 111-
be:any and f.wm w or a: ; aw : tlxit he ; tCc v ; v e d fi'i'H! defend;; u t every c; T r; ir wo rk. R thus app cars tha : d .ecvaw s period o ;
cm ni. vilumi in 1934 w; I S fi VO m m ltll = , four
Duriug thu lodi when deceased was
not engeged m CX I 1ndaat's plant as a camper, in; \vas i'.'.v expuSed to any smea liazard. Ile vas m : corking at all, o r he was iarmmy or 1;.... e ..:my tor otliers.
[3] it is
; that in parayrami
(ai, section .and c: in-.; act, 77 P.S. 1498
(a), th.e Co:; 111101: .h. can be held liable fui* a part m: lite e. .'im emotion only wimre
tue occupati' mal c :S e..;e has develop'd to lire orniti or v; .. 1deUWnt after an expo wire
da-w : in 1 " da' , four no mins, r. me days ; in 1 '5o to Ida' \ two veat-S, twi ; nu )nths, a lid f m u r d a v s ; in POP1, S even m out hs, sw nil da.;n, or a t<l-udl Ot tlire e yennrs, x SI. moni is, an-d twenty- four da;. w
[ 1 ] Appellant appa rwuly miowoneei v e s the imoort of section 3(H ( dl of' tile Ccupational Disease Act, 7/ P.S. 1401 (d), and insists that the continuation of a con tract of employment controls this type of case. T'ne board subscribed to this theory and concluded that deceased's employment extended from May 11, 193-1, to December 8, 1939, a period of five and one-half years, notwithstanding its finding as to the periods when deceased was employed as a chipper
in defendant's foundry. We fully recognize that the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, 77 P.S. 1291 et seep, should be given the same liber al construction that has been given the Workmen's Compensation Act. Roschak et ux. v. Vulcan Iron Works, 157 Pa.Super.
ot live or m ..re years. A proviso cunwu:;
similar larga.;s.ye in ; :c:icn 3011 g ) of the act, 77 P.S 1401 g q We desire to make it ehmr thaa in our opinion employnwnt in an oee ima::.on having a silica
hazard. sect: on e1
of the act, 7/ P.2.
1-01(d), exists ora;. where an employee is subjected to the hazard of exposure to
the dust of silicon c:oxide. Act ot June
21, 1939, P.L. 566, 10S(k), 77 P.S.
120S(.k) ; McGarvey v Butler Consolidated
Coal Co. et al., 1r 7 Pa.Super. 3c3, 3o6, 4o
A.2d 623. See, also, Agostin v. Pittsburgh
Steel Foundry Corp. st al., 157 Pa.Super.
322, 43 A.2d 604; T okish v. Early Foundry
Co. et a l, supra, 157 Pa.Super. 4/, 43
A.2d 553.
[4-6] Section 301 d) of the act, 77 P.S. 1401(d), give; a claimant the bene fit of any and all employments during a period of eight year; preceding the date of his disability. But the aggregate em ployment for four years during the eight
227, 235, 42 A.2d 280. But, as the court years must be in an occupation having a
below in its opinion very well stated, where silica hazard. The aggregate employment the requirements of the statute are clear, must carry with it the hazard for the re
the intention and meaning of the legisla quired time. The extended periods of
H A R T M A N V. S T A X D A L :!> s t e e l W O R K S CD. Cite as 46 A.'.'d 515
Pa_ 515
nonempioymeat or employment elsewhere
involved no such hazard on the part of
deceased. It is not, as appellant contends,
the mere continuation of a contract of
employme nt
right to I'CCf
reqtiir cd t empio.yer and hazard is an case. Hu rtu
e continued relationship of ployee. Proof of the silica entail part of a claimant's
157 P;i.Su [n:r
39.
Before B A LD R IG E , P. J., and RH ODES, BIIRT, REXO, DITKRIC1I, R O S S and ARNOLD, JJ.
h. Brewster YVickersham, of Aietzycr & \Y ickersham, all or Harrisburg, and Donold SI. Johnson, of Middleburg, for ap pellant.
Paul S. Lehman, i)f Le wist own for appe lice.
The ap pln would rw statutory 1aw
ubstantial chan
theory ill the
We thm K < the ac t is Cl !
appel!; int. {_ n the findings award cot: Id :not be sus; lined,
recovery by of fact an
Judeunci.it i or defenoants aitirmed.
RHODE.y, Judge.
Tins is an appeal bv claimant un tier the Pennsylvania Occupr1tic liai Disease Act or Tune 21, 1439, P.L. ;366, 77 P.S. 12U1 et Set 1. The claim for < ipensation w as disall 'need D' the re feerCC. Tb.e YYor HutuT C. mipensa: an: B m r J a7:a n e d the m loreo s rin lings o : tact, co: 'CO.isions of ho,v, and or .or or <hsallo wain The court below a:: rifled the board an i biismissed Hal man 2 5
H A R T M A N v. S T A N D A R D S T E E L W O R K S CO.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania. April Id. 10-0.
W o rkm en 's compensation c =549
Where claimant, seek
peimaiuon
for disability due to silica hazard, had
worked for same employer off and on dur ing a period or eight years, but during that
time claimant also worked for others whore he was not suoject to a silica hazard, and the period of ins employment when he was subject to such hazard was less than four
years, compensation was properly disal lowed. 7 P.3. 1201 et seq.
Appeal No. 2. March term. 1943, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County, No. 45, October Term, 1943; Wil liam YY . Lttley, President Judge.
Proceeding under the Occupational Disease Act by Grover H. Hartman, claim ant, opposed by Standard Steel YY'orks Company, employer. From a judgment a f firming the decision of the YYorkmen's Compensation Board disallowing compensa tion, claimant appeals.
Af f i r me d.
The re Awee found th; A claimant vvas to-
tai y disab ml on M: On.a 21, 1942, as the
re;Oik (91 ;OUCOWS CO::; racted wkue in the
on. :own' or do rondant. Claimant ha 1 hewn
cm yloyed by defend; ,r.: a: variwis times.
an ! tue p.enods m
eight vwir 9 mom.
pmceding 1us disahdu y on Alarci-, 21 , If-'2.
We re as HCow s: M. an a 21, 195- :o (be-
tab1er 22, 1954; Julv 15 . 1937, to To.lie H.
1953; No-.'ember 14, 39, to Ahorch 21,
19-1-2. Cl aimam's po r: : of enne ynn.wn
w:t ii deren. him in lp. was so von na4n:k'
: one da.y ; in 1937 and 1933, ten r:'.ontiis
an ; twenty -nine days ; i:; 1939 to 1942, two
yea.rs, four months, ;:r.o seven cans , or a
tot;il of tilr ee years, ton months, am: seven
day'S.
Clai ma nt was employe;i by the Hill Bride Colr.pany, IHaverto wn, 5 r.vder Count v, Pa., as tollows : -May 1, 1935, to Nowm: er 12, 195o; January 19, 1o'O/", to ian.ua:*y uO 1957; .March 4, 1951", to Tuiv 15, 1957: Ay:ml IS, 1959, to .X j vember 13, 1939. C1aim am s <fiuploymen : a-ith the Hill Bride Cornpany did not sub iceft him to a silica haz ard. CLaimant's erf-lployment as a chipper by dele iidant did nr. olve sudi h, izard.
Tne referee disallowed compensation for the icason that claimant did not have an aggregate employment for four years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during a period of eight y e a n next preceding the date of disability in aa occupation having a silica hazard. The aggregate employ ment of claimant with defendant was three years, ten months, and seven dayrs, during