Charles Young, Deceased, Arlene Yound, Widow, v. WCAB(Zinc Corp.) (Concurring Statement)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-7-2007] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT CHARLES YOUNG, DECEASED, ARLENE YOUNG, WIDOW : : : v. : : WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL : BOARD (ZINC CORPORATION OF : AMERICA) : : : APPEAL OF: ZINC CORPORATION OF : AMERICA : No. 41 WAP 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered April 5, 2006 at No. 1753 CD 2005, reversing the Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered August 3, 2005 at No. A04-1485. 897 A2.d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) ARGUED: March 5, 2007 CONCURRING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: MAY 31, 2007 I join the majority disposition of this appeal, because I believe that it effectuates a plain-meaning application of Section 301(c)(2) of the Workers Compensation Act, 77 P.S. §411(2). I write only to note that Employer s substantive due process argument gives me pause, since the plain-meaning interpretation of Section 301(c)(2) eliminates (or at least severely restricts) the conventional workers compensation concept of employer-specific work relatedness in the occupational disease setting. I believe, however, that any developed discussion of substantive due process relative to workers compensation would need to encompass a discussion of the trilogy of decisions in which the United States Supreme Court, in very general terms, approved the basic lossspreading scheme inherent in the general workers compensation concept as consistent with constitutional due process norms. See New York Central R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S. Ct. 247 (1916); Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210, 37 S. Ct. 255 (1916); Mountain Timber Co. v. State, 243 U.S. 219, 37 S. Ct. 260 (1916). Since Employer has not included such a discussion in its brief, or referenced any other substantive due process decision, I find its argument on this point to be insufficiently developed to warrant further consideration in this case. Madame Justice Baldwin joins this concurring statement. [J-7-2007] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.