J. Caffey v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia)
185 A.3d 437
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- Claimant Joseph Caffey, a career firefighter who last worked December 12, 2003, was diagnosed with bladder cancer in March 2009 and received surgery and treatment then.
- He filed a medical-only workers’ compensation claim in March 2013 alleging work-related bladder cancer from exposure to Group 1 carcinogens.
- Act 46 (July 2011) added Section 108(r) (firefighter cancer) and a 600-week repose for firefighter cancer claims (Section 301(f)); pre-Act law imposed a 300-week repose for occupational disease claims (Section 301(c)(2)).
- The WCJ found Caffey’s last exposure in December 2003 and concluded the pre-Act 300-week statute of repose barred the claim because Act 46 is not retroactive.
- The Board affirmed relying on this court’s en banc decision in City of Warren v. W.C.A.B. (Haines).
- This Court vacated and remanded, holding (1) medical manifestation (diagnosis, surgery, medical bills) within 300 weeks supports medical-only benefits despite no disability or death, and (2) the discovery rule may render the 2013 petition timely under the three‑year limitations period; remand ordered for WCJ findings on timeliness and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-Act 300-week statute of repose extinguished Caffey’s right to medical-only benefits | Caffey: cancer was diagnosed and surgically treated within 300 weeks of last exposure, so medical benefits survive the 300-week repose | Employer: Act 46 is not retroactive; Haines requires disability or death within 300 weeks, so claim is barred | Held: Diagnosis, surgery, and medical bills within 300 weeks constitute a significant manifestation supporting medical-only benefits; 300-week repose did not extinguish Caffey’s right to medical benefits |
| Whether Haines controls and bars Caffey’s claim | Caffey: Haines (a death case) is distinguishable because Caffey seeks medical benefits, not death or disability benefits | Employer: Haines is controlling; Act 46 cannot revive claims extinguished by the 300-week rule | Held: Haines is distinguishable; it does not control where a medical manifestation occurred within 300 weeks and claimant seeks only medical benefits |
| Whether Caffey may invoke Act 46 (Sections 108(r)/301(f)) or earlier catchall provision | Caffey: filed within 600 weeks and may satisfy either pre-Act catchall (108(n)) or Act 46 firefighter provisions; Sites/Cospelich support applying new provisions to timely-filed post-amendment petitions | Employer: Act 46 cannot revive extinguished claims; presumption in 301(f) applies only if filed within 300 weeks | Held: Caffey may proceed under either pre-Act provisions or Act 46 because his disease manifested within 300 weeks and his petition was filed within 600 weeks; however, he cannot invoke the 301(f) presumption because he did not file within the first 300 weeks |
| Whether Caffey’s 2013 petition satisfies the three-year statute of limitations (Section 315) | Caffey: discovery rule delayed accrual until he learned his cancer was work-caused (first told in 2013), so petition is timely | Employer: petition is untimely under Section 315 absent accrual exceptions | Held: Remand required; WCJ must determine whether the discovery rule (Price) makes the 2013 filing timely under the three-year limitations period; discovery rule applies to limitations (not to statutes of repose) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Warren v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Haines), 156 A.3d 371 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (en banc) (held Act 46’s 600‑week repose is not retroactive and pre‑Act 300‑week repose applies to decedents who did not die or become disabled within 300 weeks)
- City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sites), 889 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (applied newly enacted firefighter presumption to post‑amendment claim where limitation had not expired)
- City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cospelich), 893 A.2d 171 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (applied Sites to allow medical benefits for firefighter who contracted disease before amendment but filed after)
- Price v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Metallurgical Res.), 626 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1993) (discovery rule delays accrual of claim for statute of limitations purposes)
- Fargo v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Philadelphia), 148 A.3d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (interpreting Section 301(f)’s two‑tier limitations and loss of presumption if claim not filed within 300 weeks)
- City of Phila. Fire Dep’t v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sladek), 144 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (interpreting Act 46 requirements for firefighter cancer claims)