*1 OPINION PER CURIAM: denying of the trial court order challenges
This appeal follow- sentences imposed from prison conviction relief post and robbery aggravated guilty ing appellant’s pleas second murder. degree were motivated (1) guilty pleas
It is argued: circum- obtained under existence confession pretrial States; of the the Constitution United proscribed by stances knowing intelligent. not and and, (2) the were guilty pleas com- are convinced the We hаve studied record of merit. áre devoid plaints
Order affirmed. A.2d APPEAL BOARD COMPENSATION
WORKMEN’S Squillacioti, P. Josephine Squillacioti, of Vincent widow Deceased, Appellees, v. COMPANY, Appellant. S. PINCUS
BERNARD APPEAL BOARD WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION Lenz, Margaret Pennsylvania, and E. Commonwealth Deceased, Raymond Lenz, Appellees, widow v. PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania Manufactur- AYERS INC. Company, Appellants. ers’ Insurance Association Pennsylvania. Court of Supreme Argued 1977. Nov. 2, 1978.
Decided June 7, 1978. Reargument July *3 McKenna, Philadelphia, Michael P. McElvenny, John F. appellants. for Eustace, Jr., appellees. Philadelphia, J.
Frank fo.r Kaliner, for Philadelphia, appellant. F. David Zaslow, Reich, Philadelphia, Modell, Pincus, Jerry Hahn & for appellees. ROBERTS, O’BRIEN, POM- J., EAGEN, C.
Before PACKEL, JJ. EROY, NIX, MANDERINO THE OPINION OF COURT MANDERINO, Justice.
These two Workmen’s involve iden- Compensation appeals tical of whether the fatal heart attacks suffered questions claimants’ were “injuries” decedents “related” to their compensable so as to be under The employment Pennsylva- Act, 77 1 et seq. nia Workmen’s P.S. The § facts are in each cаse and are as follows. undisputed
NUMBER is the widow of Vincent Josephine Squillacioti Claimant 28, 1972,while on the July who died on business Squillacioti, of his Bernard Pincus employer, appellant Company. S. decedent was as a truck driver whose duties employed included lifting carrying products meat from the inside truck to appellant’s the tailboard of the truck where would remove the employees appellant’s consignees cargo. 28, 1972, On July decedent was such work оn engaged in appellant’s behalf. Decedent had unloaded approximately 12,776 one-half of the in the truck pounds cargo that day when he died Death was determined to been suddenly. have infarction, caused aby myocardial occlusion and coronary (heart attack). arteriosclerosis
A referee’s was held on June hearing 1973. At the it hearing was established that decedent had a history heart trouble. expert Claimant offered the of a testimony doctor who stated that decedent’s heart attack resulted from the work in which he was engaged on behalf of his employ- er. Appellant’s expert testified that decedent’s heart attack *4 was not caused rigors of his but resulted employment, from the natural progression pre-existing heart dis- ease. 23,
The Referee 1974, entered award on August favor of decedent’s widow. That award was affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal 17, Board on April 1975. Appellant timely appealed to the Commonwealth Court and that court affirmed. Workmen’s Compensation 655, A.2d 707 Pincus, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. Board v.
Appeal for allowance of appellant’s petition We (1976). granted this followed. appeal appeal,
NUMBER husband, was Lenz, now-deceased claimant’s Raymond Phila- Ayers spreader by appellant as a cutter and employed the deceased of his employment, Inc. In the cоurse delphia, table cutting approximately material on a would spread taut, spread was When the material long. feet twenty knife by with a special cut the material would decedent the table. the material on it over and guiding pushing 1972, activity September in such engaged While Decedent was heart attack. suffered a fatal decedent heart trouble. had a history the time and old at years claimant’s a Referee at which was held before hearing A which caused death the heart attack testified that expert the Work- appeal, work. On by decedent’s precipitated Referee’s set aside the Board Compensation Appeal men’s findings more specific and remanded for determination December decision dated In a second Referee’s fact. decedent’s claim- found in favor of again the Referee Referee’s award was affirmed June this ant. On apрeal, Board. On Appeal Compensation the Workmen’s Compensation affirmed. Workmen’s Commonwealth Court 249, 351 A.2d Phila., 23 Pa.Cmwlth. Board v. Appeal Ayers for allowance petition granted appellant’s We followed. appeal appeal law, that as a matter argue appellants In each case Appeal Court, Compensation the Workmen’s Commonwealth that a death concluding erred in Board, and the Referee cases is of these in the circumstances occurring heart attack Workmen’s under the Pennsylvania a compensable in both appellants More specifically, Act. such attack circumstances contend that a heart under cases is not “related” here is not an present “injury” not agree. We do employment. decedent’s *5 of findings referees’ that the no but question There is the decedents by sustained attacks were that heart fact evidеnce substantial by supported are job while on the to the evidence medical presented Both claimants each case. had suffered decedents the respective effect witnesses, these medical of attacks, opinion and that in the activity the employment related to the heart attacks were their deaths. to prior the deceaseds being performed by medical witnesses course, their own presented Appellees, were heart attacks respective that the decedent’s opined who of a the final culmination work but were not related to their of fact is the finder The referee natural disease process. to an examina review is confined scope appellate and the findings whether those to determine tion of the record evidence, and whether substantial by fact are supported error of law commit were violatеd or rights constitutional 143,383 Sons, Inc., 477 Pa. & McGee v. L. F. Grammes ted. Co., 453 Pa. Mfg. Utter v. Asten-Hill (1978); A.2d 864 Com v. Workmen’s Universal Cyclops 309 A.2d 375, 320 A.2d Board, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. pensation Appeal Act became effective The new Workmen’s here. applicable March and is Pennsylvania amendment, required compensa- Prior to the 1972 the Act killed an only employee injured tion if Further- employment. “accident” course occurring require the Act defined more, “injury” prior body.” structure of the P.S. “violencе to physical 411. § the “accident” and amended, statute eliminated
As in 77 provides and now requirements, violence” “physical that, P.S. § for for compensation shall be liable
“Every employer employe, by the death of each to, or for injury personal compen- and such employment, in the course of his injury without employer, in all cases paid sation shall be schedule contained negligence, according regard three hundred three hundred and six and in sections Provided, compensation That no of this article: seven self intentionally or death is when the shall be paid law, violation of inflicted, employe’s or is caused *6 the upon shall be of such fact proof the burden of but if, during paid shall be no compensation and employer, States, or death injury the United attacks on hostile the activities of military from solely results employees activi- military or from the United armed forces of States (Emphasis a sabotage foreign power.” enemy ties or added.) that,
Furthermore, 411 provides 77 P.S. § as used in injury,’ ‘personal terms “(1) ‘injury’ an injury mean an construed to act, shall be this condition, physical of his previous regardless employe, related there- employment the course of his in arising results from as naturally or infection to, and such disease by or accelerated reactivated aggravated, the or is injury mentioned as a cause death is and wherever injury; the act, mean death only this it shall under for compensation effects, and and its resultant such injury from resulting injury. after the hundred weeks within three occurring his employment,’ in the course of arising ‘injury The term caused article, shall not include in this as used the injure employe intended person an act of a third by him, and not directed personal of reasons because employment; because of his him as an or against employe while the other sustained injuries include all but shall the in the furtherance of engaged actually is employe whether the upon of the employer, or affairs business elsewhere, and shall include all or employer’s premises the or premises by the condition caused injuries by thereon, or affairs business employer’s the operation is who, not so though engaged, employe, the by sustained the con- or under occupied by premises injured upon busi- employer’s which upon employer, trol оf the on, pres- the employe’s carried being are ness or affairs employ- of his the nature by being required ence thereon added.) (Emphasis ment.”
293 Use of the word “accident” in the lead prior law development application the courts of the “unusual by strain doctrine” and the pathological “unusual result doc- trine.” The “unusual strain doctrine” was in heart applied attack a pre-ex- cases where claimant afflicted with doctrine, isting heart condition. Under as previously courts, attack applied cases Pennsylvania order to required of an “accident” as support finding Act, the claimant had to show that resulted injuries from unusual strain or of employ- exertion course See, Co., ment. Hilt v. Rosyln Volunteer Fire 445 Pa. 281 Procon, A.2d 873 v. (1971); Hamilton 434 Pa.
A.2d Containers, Gahan, Connelly Inc. v. Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d
Under the “unusual result pathological ap- doctrine” plied Commonwealth, the courts of this recovery would *7 be allоwed if the was unexpected found be an unusual pathological performance result of the by claimant of his in usual work the usual manner there was provided no See, evidence of a disease. Hilt v. pre-existing Rosyln Co., Procone, Volunteer v. supra; Fire Hamilton supra; Containers, Gahan, Inc. Connelly supra. v.
In issue, at cases both decedents had pre-existing heart conditions of the strain doc application “unusual trine” would have been priоr under law. necessary Given the nature their work assignments, application might doctrine have denied to both recovery complain ants because in neither case presented was evidence that the decedents engaged activity strenuous at unusually time of the case, therefore, heart attack. In neither would their deaths have resulted from a work related “accident” as required by prior law. v. Rosyln See Hilt Volunteer Fire Co., supra; Pаnther Dist. v. Valley School Workmen’s Com pensation Board, Appeal 3 A.2d Pa.Cmwlth. 403 (1974); Billick Republic 267, 257 v. Corp., Pa.Super. Steel A.2d 589 (1969).
Despite wording the obvious of the change Act, here appellants urge us to continue to the above apply sustains who
tests,
employee
between
distinguish
who was in previously
on the
but
job,
a heart attack while
exist
a
health,
previously
one who suffered from
sound
here,
of the
appellants
As noted
one
heart condition.
ing
was founded
doctrine”
the “unusual strain
behind
logic
a causal
to show
required
the claimant was
the fact that
of em
the rigors
the heart attack and
between
connection
from a pre-existing
suffered
Where an individual
ployment.
of the
condition,
progression
that
thought
it was
at
time.
the heart attack
could trigger
disease itself
or exer
unusual strain
that
requirement
Consequently,
in an effort
the claimant
was cast upon
be shown
tion
employ
from
attack resulted
the heart
assure
that
proof
progression
the natural
from
simply
ment activities and not
Co.,341
See,
v. Leedom and Worrall
Crispin
of the disease.
Importing
v. Salerno
(1941);
Pa.
295
strain doctrine was supplied
finding that the
by
injuries
were the result of unusual exertion
a worker while
performing a task not usual to his employment, and in the
case of the unusual pathological result doctrine
find-
ings
accident occurred when the worker tore
tissue or broke bones while
usual work in
performing
usual fashion. Both doctrines caused difficulties for the
profession, those
relating
unusual strain doctrine
described in
being
Justice,
considerable detail Mr.
later
Justice,
Chief
R. Jones in
Benjamin
Procon,
Hamilton v.
Inc.,
90,
434 Pa.
252
(1969).
A.2d 601
Justice Jones asked
the legislature to undertake a
study
desirability
the doctrine. No
revising
doubt as a result of that criti-
cism and of general dissatisfaction with the rule that
work-related
were not
injuries
compensable
except upon
accident,
of an
showing
legislature
1972 removed
the requirement of an accident.”
Since
enactment of the 1972 amendments to the
Act,
Workmen’s Compensation
the Commonwealth Court
has
held
consistently
that where a decedent was performing
his or her usual job
at
assignment
the time of the fatal heart
attack, and the
bеtween the
connection
work and the heart
attack was supported by competent medical testimony, dece-
dent’s claimant was
See,
entitled to compensation.
Work-
men’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Bernard S. Pincus
24
Company,
Pa.Cmwlth.
(1976);
Appellants argue that the legislature intended to continue the prior law’s requirement that “injury” be defined as “violence to the physical structure of the body.” Under the new Act is not “injury” defined. Because the *9 the statute 631-633) and (77 notice P.S. limitations on
time
§
411 specify
as well as 77 P.S.
602),
(77
§
of limitations
P.S. §
the date of
to run from
begin
of time which
periods
intended to
the legislature
that
argue
“injury,” appellants
that
is
injury
concept
laws’s established
prior
continue the
have been
could not
event,
therefore “diseases”
an
We do
“injury.”
within the term
to be included
intended
Pension
Fireman’s Relief and
v.
Creighan
In
not agree.
Bd.,
(1959),
analogous
an
419,
Significantly,
not take it out of
a disease does
tuberculosis
“Calling
It
is often said of
violence.
pulmonary
the realm of
have
they
seizures that
coronary
who die from
persons
‘heart disease’.”
succumbed to
at 846-847.
Id.
“Webster’s or aby person to or suffered or hurt done ‘Damage character, of, to, person, or violation thing, detriment of a interests, or the value or property, feelings, rights, Detriment, hurt, loss, impair- Synonyms: . . . thing is the Injury . ment, evil, ill, wrong . . injustice, sort, whether suffered term for hurt of general a thing.’ of a wrong) in the sense (often person definition is vio- that nowhere It will be noted Thus, accord- injury. non to sine qua lence a preliminary *10 words, authority Webster, inconsequential a not to ing certain (under lungs may the of tissue in a breakdown of as a laceration an injury be as much circumstances) .” bone, of . . . a fracture and muscle or even flesh at 846. at 155 A.2d Id. 397 Pa. equally applicable definition to be
We believe this
to
physical damage
attacks caused
Decedents’ heart
here.
bodily
to a
damage
the heart.
internal tissues of
Such
the
arm,
cut
leg
broken
or a
than a
is no less an
organ
compensa
legislature
be
by
was intended
and as such
As stated
employment.
to the decedent’s
ble if related
Court
court,
Supreme
from the
quoting
Creighan
8, 12, 105 N.E.
Case, 218 Mass.
in Burns
Massachusetts
(1914),
to a
‘injury,’
applied
the word
speech
“In common
whatever le-
includes
being,
to a human
personal injury
produces
system
of thе
any part
sion or change
[that]
the natural use
facility
harm or
or a lessened
pain,
capability.”
bodily activity
at 847.
PACKEL, J., partici- former did *11 cases. in the decision of these pate POMEROY, J., concurring dissenting opinion. filed a and Justice, and POMEROY, concurring dissenting. the amended Like the I believe that under majority, Act,1 a attack compen- heart is a Workmen’s Compensation the claimant that it occurred long proves sable as as injury and was related thereto. Ap- in the course of employment bar, I that agree such a standard to the cases at plying the medical evidence was introduced to show that competent a fatal heart attack in decedent Vincent suffered Squillacioti of, to, his with the employment the course and related I concur in the Accordingly, Edward Pincus Company. S. affirmance of the order Commonwealth majority’s 523) in that case. (No. Court 570, however, involving the at No. appeal With to respect Lenz, the I cannоt conclude that Raymond the decedent establish, of in the words medical evidence was sufficient Court, connection between the the “causal Commonwealth subsequent his death.” decedent’s work and amended, 2, 1915, 411(1). 77 P.S. § 1. Act of June P.L. as Board, et al. v. Appeal Ayers Workmen’s Compensation Inc., 23 Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d Philadelphia, that the mind, only In that establishes my testimony the work;2 is to indicate that nothing there decedent died at in degree of contributed employment conditions connection between Because no injury. occurrence the established, compensa the has work and attack been heart accordingly I must allowed. improperly tion benefits were that the order which affirms dissent Court’s portion at No. appeal the order the Commonwealth Court 570. Harris, opinion testimony Harvey Dr. claimant’s medical
2. The A. part expert, concerning cause of death was in decedent’s follows: you Q. opiniоn the extent Would now state to which death is related to his work. probable According A. to the information that I received most myocardial and definite of death was infarction due to cause acute way the suddenness and the the decedent was found. Based facts, only way you prove per- it one medical cent, hundred could said, autopsy. fact man as I to do an that the was irregularity hypertensive had worked who and who had a cardiac disease, had a mild condition and who had vascular who diabetic undergone just probably prior three to that had two or months work, overtime, operation, operation cataract is at which physical so much stress as it is in mental stressful him —not stress, pressure going his are there that relate to factors would up giving and his out on in common terms. him your Q. opinion In The his what was the cause of death? precipitating and the A. immediate cause was the infarсtion probably cause was Q. the environment. environment”, you What do “the mean Doctor? His A. street. He Ray He did not die at home. He did not die on the work. *12 work, table, my knowledge at his from was at Lenz, dedicated, very person gave you he was a honest who every you paid hour and a for him. half work hour Furthermore, Harris while Dr. did state that increased stress at work attack, precipitated have could the heart he was unable to state working. actually whether the was stress while decedent under give expert opinion competence It is within the of a medical his precipitated the effect a heart to attack, that known conditions of stress proper speculate but it is for him that stress conditions not simply employment associated because a heart with the existed employee at work. I am satisfied that attack occurred while the Dr. speculation essence, was, testimony nothing Harris’ more than case “relationship” employ- requisite of a between injury. ment and