Opinion by
General Electric Company and Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Apрeal Board order granting benefits to Eva Justine Woomer under her fatal claim petition.
As a matter of law, is a referee prеcluded from finding that an injury “arose in the course of employment and was related thereto,”
Thomas Woomer, a machinist for General Electric, died on May 23, 1976, at age 55. Although he had rеgularly worked a 4:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. shift five days a week, Mr. Woomer worked twelve consecutive eight-hour days before his death. On Sunday, May 23, 1976, approximately thirty-three hours after he left his employer’s premises, Mr. Woomer suffered a fatal heart attack in his home. For somеtime before his death, a family physician, Dr. Harry Heck, had been treating Mr. Woomer for obesity,' diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.
At the hearing, Mrs. Woomer testified that, during her husband’s twelve days of consecutive work, he was tired, nervous and unable to" sleep. Based upon her testimony, Mr. Woomer’s death certificate, hospital records, and Dr. Heck’s testimony, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, testified as follows:
In my opinion, the work schedule, specifically the twelve days of consecutive working on the job with the associated nеrvous tension, insom*93 nia, and apparent emotional distress as observed and commented upon by his wife, were directly related to his death on May 23 as a result of hypertensive heart disease and coronary artery thrombosis.
A person who has a comprоmised heart by. virtue of long-standing high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis is much more susceptible to a heart attack and sudden death when under prolonged emotional and physiological stress and strain or acute emotional and physiological stress thаn would a person who does not have hypertensive heart disease and any problems involving the coronary arteries. Stress аnd strain are to be avoided to the fullest extent possible within the reasonable and necessary context of a person’s lifе if it is known that that person has high blood pressure, heart disease associated with the high blood pressure, and probably some degree of arteriosclerosis ■ that further compromises coronary artery blood flow.
In this particular case, I believe that the stress and strain associated with his job by virtue of the twelve consecutive work days con- • tributed directly by aggravating these preexisting underlying significant disease processes and thereby played a role in producing his death on May 23,1976.
Dr. Lawrence Brent, a board-certifiеd internist and cardiologist, testified that Mr. Woomer’s fatal heart attack was not related to his employment.
The referee made the following pertinent finding of fact:
*94 6. Your referee finds as a fact that on May 23,1976, the Decedent died as a direct result of the job-induced nervous tension, insomnia and emotional distress which aggrаvated pre-existing hypertensive and coronary artery diseases and resulted in his death. Decedent’s heart was compromisеd by virtue of longstanding high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis, and this disease process was aggravated by the stress imposed by Deсedent’s work schedule, and its attendant side effects to the point where it caused and resulted in his death.
The board affirmed.
General Electric contends that, despite our Supreme Court’s decision in Krawchuk v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,
In Krawchuk, our Supreme Court observed:
Not infrequently, a stress heart attack is a gradual injury wherein the pressures and strain of the job — physical, mental or both — take their toll in small doses until, at some point, those doses in the aggregate push the heart past its limits. That such point happens to manifest itself at the victim’s home is irrrelevant except insofar as the location of the final onslaught*95 might have some bearing in a given case' on whether the injury arose in the course of emрloyment and was related thereto.
The location should be, therefore, merely a factor for the referee to consider. (Emphasis in original.)
Id. at 123,124,
Although stating its conclusion in terms of place, rather than time, the Court clearly addressed the issuе which General Electric now raises. The passage of time is merely a factor for the referee to consider under seсtion 301(c); it is not a question of law for our court to decide. Thus, based upon competent evidence, a referee could find that a stress heart attack was too remote in time and place from the victim’s work to have arisen in the course of, and bе related to, his employment. We therefore disagree with General Electric’s contention that any heart attack suffered by аn employee is compensable. See, e.g., Marincov v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,
General Electric also contends that substantial evidеnce of record does not support the referee’s finding that Mr. Woomer died “as a direct result of . . . job-induced nervous tension, insomnia and emotional distress.” Specifically, General Electric submits that there is no evidence to suggest that these conditions werе job-induced. We disagree.
Mrs. Woomer clearly established the link between her husband’s increased workload and the deterioratiоn of his health, by testifying as follows:
*96 Q. Did this twelve, eight-hour day in a row schedule have any effect on your husband that you could notice ?
A. Yes. It madе him real tired and he wasn’t sleeping well and he was nervous and
Q. How long did you notice your husband in this condition, this nervous condition?
A. Well, after he worked about five days straight.
Q. So the last wеek you testified he would not sleep well and would be nervous ?
A. Yes, sir. That’s right.
Because we perceive no errors of law in the board’s oрinion, and because substantial evidence of record supports the challenged finding of fact, we affirm.
Order
Now, December 14, 1983, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-81862, entered April 29,1982, is affirmed.
Notes
The Pennsylvania, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act, of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, §301 (c), as amended, 77 P.S. §411.