Document n9J1q2wD08D8EyL8Ly9XY4Vk2

1 r... -- r Ihr. Ji'i lication i He u\f*t Hy rUimant* or rrti|.|&vrr in r nr. Aprlie.i'ian i-t P ennsirferatinn f either dfcii* of tnt A in".at.,- o' the Iluu-Ju of Worlr.i.n* teffir 'ion r the lUmonal LoarU% of Review as provided in K C 4l.'i SlMiS-SlV. State of Ohio Bureau of Workmen's Compensation Application For Reconsideration CLAIM No OD 107910 .Henry Hoerst., states that he Is__________________________________ S.1 (Qaim*AtvEfl*plytr> in the above numbered claim, which was heard by the--- ------a--- .^.....r..i..9...t.r..f..i.^.."A...v'*...... ........ ....................... _ Adminutrati't.Rrcioaal lioard o! Review on....J':.X..1.1........ ........ .. ............ . 19..T..?., and the following finding made: It is the findlnr of the Administrator that there is no provision in the V.'orkir.en1 s Compensation Lows for payment of comoensation and benefits becuase of chance of occupation to substantially reduce exposure to dusts in a case involving the disease of esbestosis or any*other disease of the respiratory tract due tc injurious exposure to dusts, except in coses involving the disease of silicosis. It is therefore ordered ti claimant's application filed December 26, 1959, be denied. Notice of such finding received by him on------- ,,------------------- nSL Applicant says this finding should be reconsidered for the following reasons: that Dr. Princi of the Kettering Laboratories in Cincinnati maintains that asbestOsls is the same as silicosis and should not be distinguished from it. ........... He therefore requests that such finding be reviewed and reconsidered by the.. ..... .....ReKi.phal..3pard...pf..P.eyj.e_w_pr... In(i\)stri.al_i.CommisRipn. Actminutr.-uor-Heclnn.'il Hoard of Review or Industrial Commission and that it be modified in the following respects: Claim be allowed. ......................... _____ Ap.ilit.int .lp.l.Q.?...'/,a.y.n.e.. Avenue*.. V/opdlawn,__ Address Cincinnati 15, Ohio r r r *v cr Date: 6/9 59 19.. I -m