occupational disease claim in Pennsylvania

2021As explained in City of Philadelphia Fire Department v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sladek), 195 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2018): [Section 108(r) of the Act] requires the claimant to establish a general causative link between the [decedent’s] type of cancer and a Group 1 carcinogen.

2018Employer argues this matter cannot be considered an occupational disease claim because toxic encephalopathy is not a disease specifically listed in Section 108(c), which refers only to “[p]oisoning.” (Employer’s Br. at 33 and n.7.) However, our Supreme Court affirmed the application of the discovery rule to a claim under Section 108(a) of the WC Act for “lead encephalopathy” caused by work-related exposure to lead notwithstanding that this section refers to “poisoning by . . . lead” but not specifically to “encephalopathy.” Price, 626 A.2d at 117 .

2018Moreover, the claimant in Temple University successfully asserted a claim pursuant to Section 108(c) for organic brain damage and an immune dysfunction, neither of which is specifically referenced by this section, due to her overexposure to halogenated hydrocarbons. 588 A.2d at 64-65 .

2018Appeal Bd. (Sherlock), 934 A.2d 156 , 159 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 14 case, Armco, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Mattern), 667 A.2d 710, 717 (Pa. 1995).

2018It acknowledges that the “discovery rule” may toll this three-year period for an occupational disease claim, City of McKeesport v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Miletti), 746 A.2d 87 , 90 n.7 (Pa. 2000); however, that rule does not apply in a work injury 13 Employer also raised several other issues with which the Board agreed and either modified the decision or remanded for further proceedings. (2014 Board Op. at 22-24.) 14 In reviewing Board orders, we determine “whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law[,] or whether necessary f

2017Further, in Fargo v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 148 A.3d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), petition for allowance of appeal pending (Pa., No. 486 EAL 2016, filed November 4, 2016), we reaffirmed that Act 46 defined a distinct limitations period in Section 301(f), which mandates that an occupational disease claim under Section 108(r) be filed within 600 weeks of the last date of workplace exposure to a Group 1 carcinogen.

1998Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987).

1998Pawlosky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 514 Pa. 450 , 525 A.2d 1204 (1987).

1995In Hebden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 142 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 176, 194-95, 597 A.2d 182, 191-92 (1991), rev’d on other grounds, 534 Pa. 327 , 632 A.2d 1302 (1993), the court provides an explanation of the burden of proof required of a claimant filing an occupational disease claim petition as follows: On a claim petition, the claimant has the burden of establishing each of the elements necessary to sustain an award....

1995In Hebden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 142 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 176, 194-95, 597 A.2d 182, 191-92 (1991), rev’d on other grounds, 534 Pa. 327 , 632 A.2d 1302 (1993), the court provides an explanation of the burden of proof required of a claimant filing an occupational disease claim petition as follows: On a claim petition, the claimant has the burden of establishing each of the elements necessary to sustain an award....

1992Smith), 70 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 100, 452 A.2d 611 (1982).

1974The board rejected the medical opinion of a physician by stating. “ ‘Although competent, we do not accept this evidence as credible.” ’ The Supreme Court in Lowery v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 427 Pa. 576 (1967), accepted the principle that the board had wide latitude in dealing with evidence to establish facts, but held the characterization “competent, but not credible” to be so arbitrary as to require corrective action.

1974We might find some edification on this score in an interesting exercise in semantics starting with Lowery v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 210 Pa. Superior Ct. 75 (1967), wherein the Superior Court affirmed the Workmen’s Compensation Board in denying an occupational disease claim.