From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oscar Mayer Co. v. W.C.A.B. et al

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 23, 1981
57 Pa. Commw. 54 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)

Opinion

Argued February 2, 1981

February 23, 1981.

Workmen's compensation — The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act, Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566 — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736 — Election — Amendment.

1. A claimant seeking benefits for disability resulting from an occupational disease may proceed under provisions of The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act, Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 736, or provisions of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, and may seek leave to amend a petition modifying that choice, but workmen's compensation authorities cannot unilaterally change a claim filed under one statute to one filed under the other. [56]

2. Workmen's compensation authorities must give relief pursuant to the statute under which a claim is filed and cannot effect a change in the statutory basis of the claim on the basis of a single sentence in a brief filed long after hearing in the matter which suggests a change in theory by the claimant. [56]

Judge MacPHAIL dissented.

Argued February 2, 1981, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., MacPHAIL and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 82 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Joseph McLaughlin v. Oscar Mayer Co. No. A-74030.

Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for disability benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Hold: Award vacated. Case remanded.

William R. Hourican, of counsel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius, for petitioner.

Charles F. Love, of counsel, Feedman and Lorry, for respondent, Joseph McLaughlin.

Lawrence W. Dague, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.


Petitioner appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed an order of the referee awarding benefits under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Workmen's Compensation Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1 et seq., to the claimant-respondent herein. Claiming disability due to exposure to chlorine gas, claimant petitioned for benefits pursuant to the provisions of The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act (Occupational Disease Act), Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1201 et seq.

Benefits for disabilities due to occupational diseases may be claimed under either of the Acts or under both in the alternative.

[I]n all events the choice lies with the claimant. The referee and the Board are bound by the claimant's choice, and neither may unilaterally change a claim under one statute to a claim under the other statute. Moreover, the claimant has the power to amend his petition so as to claim benefits under the other statute and when properly made, such an amendment also binds the referee and the Board. (Footnote omitted.)

Industrial Services Contracting, Inc. v. Wilson, 28 Pa. Commw. 83, 90, 367 A.2d 377, 381 (1977).

The claim petition in the instant case, filed July 17, 1973, requests relief under the provisions of the Occupational Disease Act. The referee and the Board stated that the award granting benefits to the claimant was made pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Though claimant did not seek leave of the referee to amend his claim petition, the Board considered a sentence in claimant's brief submitting findings of fact and conclusions of law to the referee to be an exercise of claimant's power to amend. We cannot regard a single sentence in a brief filed more than 15 months after the last evidentiary hearing in the case to be a proper amendment to the initial claim petition. "[W]here a petition is filed originally pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act, the Board must follow the provisions of that statute in its determination of the claim." Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 23 Pa. Commw. 634, 636, 353 A.2d 90, 91 (1976). Since the case must be remanded, we need not address the other issues raised by petitioner.

The first sentence in claimant's brief, submitted June 9, 1976 to the referee, read: "Primarily, the Claimant in this case has made the election to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended, and not the Occupational Disease Act."

Accordingly, we will enter the following

ORDER

AND NOW, February 23, 1981, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, Docket No. A-74030, issued December 13, 1979, is hereby vacated. It is ordered that this matter be remanded to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board for remand to the referee to allow amendment of the claim petition and for further consideration in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion, with authority to receive evidence as the Board, in its discretion, may find necessary and proper.

Judge MacPHAIL dissents.


Summaries of

Oscar Mayer Co. v. W.C.A.B. et al

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 23, 1981
57 Pa. Commw. 54 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)
Case details for

Oscar Mayer Co. v. W.C.A.B. et al

Case Details

Full title:Oscar Mayer Company, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen's…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 23, 1981

Citations

57 Pa. Commw. 54 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)
425 A.2d 879

Citing Cases

Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

Accordingly, "[WC b]enefits for disabilities due to occupational diseases may be claimed under either [the…

General Refractories v. W.C.A.B

Mrs. Wright chose to file under the Occupational Disease Act. It was the Employer that erroneously filed its…