Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Aristech Chemical Corporation appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) ruling granting specific loss benefits for the claimant’s hearing loss in his right ear under Section 306(c)(8) of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. The claimant argued that his hearing loss resulted from continuous exposure to loud noise during his employment since 1986. The WCJ found the claimant and his expert witness credible, concluding that he suffered a complete loss of hearing for practical purposes, warranting a 60-week benefit award. The employer contended that an objective standard should define 'complete loss of hearing,' but the court upheld the subjective standard based on everyday functional impairment. The decision was supported by substantial evidence demonstrating the claimant's challenges in daily communication. The court's review was limited to constitutional rights, legal errors, and the sufficiency of evidence, and it affirmed the board's decision despite acknowledging recent legislative amendments suggesting an objective standard. The court emphasized adhering to the established subjective approach, respecting legislative authority without altering the judicial interpretation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Legislative Influence on Judicial Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Although recent legislative amendments introduced an objective standard for hearing loss, the court adhered to the subjective standard, respecting legislative authority while maintaining prior judicial interpretations.
Reasoning: Additionally, recent legislative amendments introduced an objective standard, responding to prior court invitations for reevaluation of laws concerning occupational hearing loss.
Standard of Review in Workers’ Compensation Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's review was confined to constitutional rights, legal errors, and substantial evidence supporting the findings, maintaining deference to the established subjective standard.
Reasoning: The review scope was limited to constitutional rights, legal errors, and whether the findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Termination of Parental Rights under Civil Code Section 232subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the subjective standard for 'complete loss of hearing' as it relates to the claimant's ability to function in daily life, rather than a strict clinical definition.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court established that the interpretation of 'complete loss of hearing' should be relative to everyday experiences rather than a strict clinical definition.
Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Hearing Losssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the award of benefits for a 'complete loss of hearing' in the claimant's right ear based on subjective functional impairment, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s findings.
Reasoning: The WCJ found Keefer and Dr. Froman credible, concluding that he suffered a complete loss of hearing in his right ear for all practical intents and purposes, and awarded benefits for 60 weeks.