City of Phila. Fire Dep't v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
144 A.3d 1011
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant (firefighter since 1994) had malignant melanoma surgically removed in 2007 and filed a workers’ compensation claim (2012) asserting workplace exposure to IARC Group 1 carcinogens caused the melanoma.
- Claimant testified to workplace exposures (smoke, soot, diesel exhaust, secondhand smoke) and submitted expert reports: Dr. Weaver (firefighter exposures include multiple Group 1 agents) and Dr. Singer (oncologist; opined firefighting exposures were a "substantial contributing factor").
- Employer offered Dr. Guidotti (toxicologist/epidemiologist), who testified that malignant melanoma is principally caused by ultraviolet radiation, that specific carcinogens cause specific cancers, and that epidemiologic methodology (Bradford Hill criteria) does not support linking Group 1 agents to melanoma.
- The WCJ credited Claimant and Dr. Singer, found workplace arsenic/soot exposure significantly contributed to Claimant’s melanoma, and awarded medical benefits; the WCJ rejected Dr. Guidotti as not material.
- The Board affirmed, holding that proof of exposure to any IARC Group 1 carcinogen plus a cancer diagnosis satisfied Section 108(r) such that the statutory presumption applied and Employer failed to rebut it.
- This Court vacated and remanded, concluding the Board misread Section 108(r) by ignoring the statute’s phrase "caused by," and directing the Board/WCJ to assess admissibility of expert testimony under Frye/Pa.R.E. 702 and to reconsider causation and rebuttal under the proper legal framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 108(r) requires proof that the firefighter’s particular cancer is "caused by" exposure to Group 1 carcinogens | Sladek: showing diagnosis plus exposure to Group 1 agents suffices to invoke presumption | City: Section 108(r)’s "caused by" language requires proof that that cancer type is caused by Group 1 agents before presumption applies | Court: "Caused by" must be given effect; claimant must show melanoma is a type of cancer caused by Group 1 agents before presumption applies (vacated and remanded) |
| Whether, once exposure and occupational-disease status are shown, the statutory presumption shifts the burden to Employer | Sladek: presumption applies after proof of exposure and diagnosis | City: presumption only applies after claimant proves cancer type is caused by Group 1 agents; then employer may rebut | Court: confirmed presumption applies only after occupational-disease threshold met; employer may rebut under Section 301(e)/(f) |
| Admissibility of Claimant’s expert causation opinions (Dr. Singer) under Frye/Pa.R.E. 702 | Sladek: WCJ properly admitted and credited Dr. Singer’s differential-diagnosis-based opinion | City: Dr. Singer’s methodology is not generally accepted epidemiologic methodology and may fail Frye/Pa.R.E. 702 | Court: Board must determine on remand whether Pa.R.E. 702/Frye applies and if Dr. Singer’s opinion meets that standard before weighing causation evidence |
| Whether Employer’s expert (Dr. Guidotti) adequately rebutted causation/presumption | City: Dr. Guidotti shows melanoma is linked to UVR, not Group 1 agents, and thus rebuts presumption | Sladek: Dr. Guidotti did not opine as to this individual’s melanoma cause, so did not rebut | Court: Dr. Guidotti’s testimony is relevant to both initial occupational-disease question and rebuttal; Board/WCJ must reassess credibility and weight on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93 (Pa. 2008) (plain meaning of statutory text governs when unambiguous)
- Chanceford Aviation Props., L.L.P. v. Chanceford Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 923 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 2007) (statutory language controls legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 876 A.2d 366 (Pa. 2005) (legislative history considered only when statutory text ambiguous)
- Grady v. Frito–Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (describing Frye standard as incorporated into Pa.R.E. 702 for novel scientific evidence)
- Sherrod v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Thoroughgood, Inc.), 666 A.2d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (WCJ’s role in assessing credibility and weighing medical evidence)