D.W. Schmidt v. WCAB (City of Allentown), 1887 C.D. 2016

Background

David W. Schmidt worked as an Allentown firefighter from 1978 until his last active day in October 2009; he underwent open‑heart surgery October 22, 2009, and retired in May 2010.
Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim (June 28, 2012) alleging occupational coronary atherosclerosis and total disability beginning October 14, 2009.
Claimant testified to routine smoke and diesel exposure over his career and that self‑contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) became routine after the late 1980s, though he did not always use it earlier.
Claimant’s expert, Dr. DePace, opined firefighting exposures were a significant contributing cause of his coronary disease and disability; Employer’s expert, Dr. Gascho, attributed the disease primarily to classic risk factors (hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes) and opined Claimant could return to work.
WCJ initially denied the claim; the Board remanded to apply the Section 301 presumption. On remand the WCJ applied the presumption but found Employer rebutted it by credible medical evidence and again denied the claim; the Board affirmed. Claimant appealed to this Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Employer produced substantial, competent evidence to rebut the Section 301 presumption that the disease was work‑caused	Schmidt: Dr. Gascho’s opinion is incompetent because he misunderstood Claimant’s exposure/use of SCBA and relied on possibilities; thus presumption remains unrebutted	City: Dr. Gascho gave a reasoned opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that classic risk factors primarily caused the disease and that SCBA use after the 1980s reduced exposure risk	Court: Affirmed Board/WCJ — Dr. Gascho’s testimony was competent and credited; Employer rebutted the presumption
Whether Dr. Gascho expressed causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty	Schmidt: Dr. Gascho failed to tie causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty	City: Dr. Gascho clearly stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that premature coronary disease was due mainly to hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes	Court: Held Dr. Gascho gave a sufficient opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty; treating physician’s statement was consistent
Whether acknowledgment that particulate exposure can be additive undermines Employer’s rebuttal	Schmidt: Admission that particulate matter is additive makes Dr. Gascho’s testimony legally insufficient to rebut	City: Even acknowledging additive risk, Dr. Gascho explained the exposure risk was minor compared with the documented classic risk factors	Court: Held admission did not negate his testimony; WCJ permissibly credited Dr. Gascho’s relative‑causation analysis

Key Cases Cited

Harrigan v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 397 A.2d 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (claimant must establish occupational disease and disability)
Dillon v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 853 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (once occupational disease is shown, employment causation is presumed but rebuttable by substantial competent evidence)
Buchanan v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 659 A.2d 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (competence of medical testimony is a question of law reviewed in context of entire testimony)
City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kribel), 29 A.3d 762 (Pa. 2011) (expert opinions must be grounded in record facts and reasonable inferences)
City of Williamsport v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cole (Deceased)), 145 A.3d 806 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (expert must base testimony on record facts or reasonable inferences)
Jeannette District Memorial Hosp. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Mesich), 668 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (employer failed to rebut presumption where experts could not identify alternative causation)
Vols v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Alperin, Inc.), 637 A.2d 711 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (credibility and evidentiary weight are for the WCJ to decide)