Steele v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Findlay Township)
155 A.3d 1173
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Roy Steele, a long‑time volunteer firefighter (joined 1968), was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in 2009 and died in 2011; his wife Cheryl filed a fatal claim petition under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Claimant sought benefits under Section 108(r) (cancer as occupational disease for firefighters) and relied on lay testimony from two fellow volunteer firefighters and other testimony to prove direct exposure to IARC Group 1 carcinogens; no PennFIRS reports were introduced.
- WCJ dismissed the lifetime claim but granted the fatal claim, finding lay testimony and expert evidence established work‑related exposure and causation; the WCJ also found employer had rebutted the statutory presumption but Claimant proved causation.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed, holding volunteer firefighters must prove direct exposure by PennFIRS reports as required by Section 301(f) of the Act, and lay testimony alone was insufficient.
- The Commonwealth Court agreed that the Act’s plain language requires PennFIRS reports for volunteer firefighters, vacated the Board’s order, and remanded for the Board to consider alternative compensability theories (Sections 108(o) and/or 301(c)(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay witness testimony can satisfy Section 301(f)’s "evidence of direct exposure... documented by reports filed pursuant to PennFIRS" requirement for volunteer firefighters | Steele: lay testimony and other evidence established direct exposure; PennFIRS not necessary or in employer's control | Employer: the statute’s plain language requires PennFIRS reports for volunteer firefighters; absence of reports is fatal | Court: Statute plainly requires PennFIRS documentation for volunteer firefighters; lay testimony insufficient under that provision |
| Whether Claimant may pursue alternative theories (e.g., Section 108(o) or Section 301(c)(1)) after Board reversed WCJ | Steele: even if PennFIRS required for Section 108(r), other provisions (heart/lung disease or general injury) support recovery; petitioner raised Section 301(c) at hearing | Employer: Claimant failed to plead those theories and waived them | Court: Claimant may proceed under other sections; remand for Board to consider Sections 108(o) and/or 301(c)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phila. Fire Dep’t v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sladek), 144 A.3d 1011 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discusses Act 46 amendments and presumption for firefighter cancer)
- Hutz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 147 A.3d 35 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (interpretation of Sections 108(r) and 301(f) for career firefighters)
- City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cospelich), 893 A.2d 171 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (form of petition not controlling where facts warrant relief under another section)
- Gen. Refractories Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wright), 635 A.2d 120 (Pa.) (Supreme Court endorsing consideration of claims under proper statutory theory regardless of pleading)
- Long v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Anchor Container Corp.), 505 A.2d 369 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant may proceed under unpleaded theories)
- Leed v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Quaker Alloy Casting Co.), 504 A.2d 433 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (vacatur and remand where alternate statutory relief may apply)