Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
161 A.3d 446
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Decedent Donald Bromley worked as an electrician at Kimberly‑Clark’s Chester paper plant from 1973 until August 2005 (with 40 additional hours in Feb 2006); he died of metastatic bladder cancer on June 23, 2006.
- Claimant (widow Sharon Bromley) filed fatal claim petitions under WC Act §301(c)(1) (disease as injury) and §301(c)(2) (occupational disease presumption); employer denied causation and raised defenses.
- Lay co‑workers (Bonkowski and Parris) testified from decades of first‑hand work experience that electricians (including Bromley) were exposed to xylene (containing ethylbenzene/benzene), dyes (including historic aniline use), silica/coal ash, asbestos and other solvents through 2000–2005; employer’s environmental manager (Baker) acknowledged some dust/asbestos/silica/dye presence but disputed significant post‑1995 exposures.
- Claimant’s expert oncologist (Dr. Singer) reviewed medical records, MSDSs and literature and opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that cumulative workplace exposure (xylene/benzene, asbestos, silica, dyes) was a substantial contributing cause of Bromley’s bladder cancer and death; employer’s expert (Dr. Lippman) disagreed.
- WCJ credited the lay witnesses and Dr. Singer, found exposure on or after Sept. 22, 2000 (300‑week lookback), and awarded widow’s benefits; the Board affirmed on remand; employer appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bromley) | Defendant's Argument (Kimberly‑Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Claimant prove causation under §301(c)(1) (disease as injury)? | Cumulative workplace exposures were a substantial contributing cause of bladder cancer; Dr. Singer’s medical opinion is unequivocal and supported by lay testimony and MSDS/literature. | Employer argued Dr. Singer lacked adequate factual/scientific basis and that workplace exposure did not cause the cancer. | Court upheld WCJ: Dr. Singer’s opinion credited; substantial evidence supports causation. |
| 2. Did Claimant prove exposure to workplace hazards on/after the 300‑week cutoff (Sept. 22, 2000)? | Lay co‑workers and employer witness supported continued exposure (dyes, silica, asbestos, some solvents) during the lookback period. | Employer disputed significant hazardous exposures after 1995 and pointed to abatement and record gaps. | Court held lay testimony plus employer admissions constituted substantial evidence of exposure on/after Sept. 22, 2000. |
| 3. Is lay/co‑worker testimony sufficient to prove existence of hazard and exposure? | First‑hand observations by long‑term co‑workers establish presence and exposure; expert relied on those facts. | Employer contended lay testimony was conclusory and insufficient without scientific proof. | Court held first‑hand lay testimony is an acceptable factual basis; WCJ permissibly relied on it. |
| 4. Did the WCJ issue a reasoned decision? | N/A (Claimant prevailed) | Employer argued the WCJ failed to adequately explain credibility and merely adopted claimant’s proposed findings. | Court found the WCJ provided summaries and objective rationale for credibility findings; decision satisfied §422(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 525 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 1987) (broad construction of “injury” to include disease as injury under §301(c)(1))
- McCullough v. Xerox Corp., 581 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 1990) (failure to meet §301(c)(2) presumption does not bar recovery under §301(c)(1))
- Gibson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Armco Stainless & Alloy Prods.), 861 A.2d 938 (Pa. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for fatal claim petitions)
- Curran v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Maxwell Indus.), 664 A.2d 667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (cumulative trauma/disease injuries develop over time; date of injury is fact‑specific)
- Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Williams), 814 A.2d 788 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (injury may result from daily trauma; cumulative exposure concept applied)