31 Pa. Commw. 599 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1977
Opinion by
Bose Gallo (claimant) has appealed from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which reversed the decision of a referee and denied her benefits for continuing total disability from dermatitis.
Following a hearing on the petition for benefits-under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act,
Alternatively, the claimant argues that her condition is an occupational disease within the provisions of the omnibus clause of Section 108(n) of the Act.
"We must conclude that the Board did not commit an error of law in refusing to award disability benefits to this claimant after she had fully recovered from the symptoms of her occupational disease. The order of the Board is, therefore, affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 14th day of September, 1977, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board is hereby affirmed.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq.
Section 108 o£ the Act, 77 P.S. §27.1, contains the complete list of those diseases recognized as “occupational diseases”.
Section 108 (n) of the Act, 77 P.S. §27.1(n), provides that the term “occupational disease” includes:
(n) All other diseases (1) to which the claimant is exposed by reason of his employment, and (2) which are causally related to the industry or occupation, and (3) the incidence of which is substantially greater in that industry or occupation than in the general population.
The Board, in its opinion, made reference to the referee’s finding that “the disease to which the claimant was exposed by reason of her employment was causally related to her occupation and the incidence of which is substantially greater in that occupation than in the general population.” Although the finding was not actually deleted, the Board stated: “that finding is only required in diseases under Section 108(n) of the act.” Apparently the Board did not consider the claimant’s petition as one for compensation under Section 108 (n), and it had no reason to do so in the absence of any such claim. The only evidence of record relating to this finding was the statement by the employer’s representative that “[w]e have other people who have dermatitis.”