J. Gilbert v. South Whitehall Twp. (WCAB)
650 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jun 12, 2025Background
- James Gilbert, a part-time fire police volunteer and former volunteer firefighter, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February 2018 and suffered wage loss due to treatment.
- Gilbert claimed his cancer was caused by occupational exposure as a firefighter/fire police and sought workers’ compensation benefits from South Whitehall Township.
- He notified his employer of his belief that the cancer was work-related immediately after his diagnosis in February 2018.
- Gilbert filed his workers’ compensation claim petition in January 2023, nearly five years after his diagnosis and wage loss.
- The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirmed, applying the three-year filing limitation in Section 315 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Gilbert appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing the 600-week firefighter cancer provision in Section 301(f) controlled, or alternatively, that the three-year period should have been tolled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 301(f)’s 600-week period supplant Section 315’s 3-year limit for firefighter cancer claims? | Gilbert: Only the 600-week deadline in Section 301(f) applies to firefighter cancer claims, not the 3-year general bar in Section 315. | Township: The 3-year deadline in Section 315 applies to all claims, including firefighter cancer; both periods must be met. | Court held both deadlines must be met; Section 301(f) does not override Section 315. |
| Was the claim timely under Section 315’s discovery rule? | Gilbert: The 3-year period should only start upon receipt of a medical opinion confirming a work connection, which he did not receive until later. | Township: The 3-year period started when Gilbert knew about the diagnosis and its potential work connection, as reflected in his 2018 notice to the employer. | Court held period began in February/March 2018; petition was untimely. |
| Should the limitations period be tolled due to employer misinformation or notice issues? | Gilbert: The period should be tolled due to confusion/misinformation about claim viability as fire police. | Township: No evidence of intentional employer misconduct or misleading; claimant notified promptly. | Court found no tolling was warranted; no misleading conduct established. |
| Was there a waiver of the claimant’s arguments on appeal? | Gilbert: Argued previously that Section 315 was tolled; now expands on legal basis. | Township: Claimed new arguments on discovery rule not preserved below. | Court declined to find waiver, allowing expansion on preserved legal issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Johnstown v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (Sevanick), 255 A.3d 214 (Pa. 2021) (Section 301(f) does not reference Section 315; did not address timeliness under Section 315)
- Fargo v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Philadelphia), 148 A.3d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Section 315’s 3-year period not superseded by Section 301(f); both must be satisfied)
- Caffey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (City of Philadelphia), 185 A.3d 437 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Both Section 315 and 301(f) apply to firefighter cancer claims)
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (Claimant bears burden of proving all necessary elements, including timely filing)