Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Boles)

713 A.2d 1116, 552 Pa. 148, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1111
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 4, 1998
DocketNo. 502 M.D. Alloc. Dkt. 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 713 A.2d 1116 (Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Boles)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Boles), 713 A.2d 1116, 552 Pa. 148, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1111 (Pa. 1998).

Opinion

[1117]*1117 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. In the recent case of Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Baxter), 550 Pa. 658, 708 A.2d 801 (1998), this Court held that a claimant is not entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits for a pre-existing non-work related condition when the claimant has fully recovered from any work-related injury caused by the aggravation of that condition. In making this ruling, the Court noted that the claimant would have been entitled to benefits if he could have shown that he continues to suffer from any work-related injury caused by the aggravation of that condition or that the exposure at work had resulted in an ongoing condition that affected the claimant’s pulmonary capacity. 708 A2d at 804.

Here, there is no dispute that respondent suffered a work-related injury in the form of an aggravation of a pre-existing non-work related injury. However, unlike Baxter, the workers’ compensation judge in this case found as a fact that respondent’s aggravation of his pre-existing condition continued after May 7, 1984, the date petitioner obtained a position with another employer which would not aggravate his asthmatic condition. Thus, since the judge found as fact that the work-related aggravation continued after May 7, 1984, and petitioner’s petition fails to explain how this finding was not supported by substantial evidence, the Commonwealth Court correctly affirmed the judge’s grant of partial disability benefits to respondent. Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kurpiewski v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
202 A.3d 870 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)
Locher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
782 A.2d 35 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
Reinforced Molding Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
717 A.2d 1096 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
713 A.2d 1116, 552 Pa. 148, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethlehem-steel-corp-v-workmens-compensation-appeal-board-boles-pa-1998.