P. DiLaqua v. City of Philadelphia Fire Dept. (WCAB)
268 A.3d 1
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2021Background
- Petitioner Peter DiLaqua was a Philadelphia firefighter (hired 2003) who later worked in the Visual Communication Unit photographing multiple‑alarm fires and fatalities without respiratory protection, reporting soot exposure and progressive respiratory symptoms.
- He was diagnosed (August 2016) with RADS/occupational asthma, notified Employer, and Employer issued a denial; DiLaqua filed a medical‑only Claim Petition (August 2018) seeking payment of medical expenses for RADS.
- A WCJ conducted hearings and credited claimant testimony and treating‑physician records, finding that claimant suffers from asthma causally related to his firefighting work and awarded medical benefits; Employer appealed.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed, holding the Section 301(e) rebuttable presumption inapplicable because claimant had no disability (earnings loss) and concluding claimant’s medical evidence was equivocal as to work causation.
- This Court reversed the Board: it held disability/earnings loss is not required to invoke the Section 301(e) presumption in a medical‑only claim and remanded for application of the correct legal standard and clarification whether the diagnosed condition (RADS/asthma/pulmonary disease) qualifies under Section 108 and is causally related to employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 301(e) presumption requires disability (loss of earnings) before it applies to a medical‑only claim | DiLaqua: Presumption applies if claimant proves an occupational disease listed in Section 108; no earnings loss is required for medical benefits or for the presumption in medical‑only claims | Employer: Disability (loss of earning power) is a prerequisite to the Section 301(e) presumption | Court held for DiLaqua: disability/earnings loss not required for the presumption in a medical‑only claim; Board erred in imposing that requirement |
| Whether claimant proved work causation by unequivocal medical evidence absent the presumption | DiLaqua: Treating physicians and factual exposure support causation; WCJ credited that evidence | Employer: Medical records are equivocal; IME finds no objective pulmonary impairment and attributes symptoms to cardiac/post‑nasal causes | Court: Remanded — WCJ credibility findings that claimant has asthma are supported by evidence, but the record is unclear whether RADS vs asthma qualifies under Section 108 and whether causation was properly adjudicated; further proceedings required |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriebel), 29 A.3d 762 (Pa. 2011) (explains that Section 301(e) shifts burden to employer to rebut presumption with substantial, competent evidence)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cospelich), 893 A.2d 171 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (medical‑only claim: employer must pay medical expenses even without earnings loss; presumption may apply without disability)
- Young v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (Zinc Corp. of America), 897 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (affirming that medical benefits can be awarded for occupational disease absent earnings loss)
- Steele v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Findlay Twp.), 155 A.3d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (discusses claimant burden to prove an occupational disease listed in Section 108 to invoke the presumption)
- Caffey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 185 A.3d 437 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (reiterates that medical bills for occupational disease may be payable even without lost earnings)
- Roundtree v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 116 A.3d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (describes that unequivocal medical evidence is generally required to establish causation when the connection is not obvious)