Supreme Court holds that medical opinion based upon unsubstantiated assumptions or proper factual foundation is insufficient to overcome the presumption of occupational disease causation.

The claimant, a firefighter, died from liver disease caused by Hepatitis C. The decedent's widow filed a fatal claim petition alleging that he died from Hepatitis C contracted in the course of his employment, a result of exposure to the blood of victims whom he attended. The decedent's widow offered supporting medical evidence. The defense countered with a medical opinion that the decedent's hepatitis was acquired from intravenous drug use and relied upon a note in the decedent's military records of more than 30 years ago indicating he had Hepatitis B from drug usage. The employer's medical expert opined that Hepatitis B and C are transmitted commonly through needle-related drug use and concluded that the decedent contracted Hepatitis C in that manner. The workers' compensation judge accepted this evidence and ruled against the widow.

After the Appeal Board reversed and the Commonwealth Court upheld the workers' compensation judge, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the employer's medical evidence was competent to overcome the rebuttable presumption under the Occupational Disease Act that the Hepatitis C was from the decedent's employment. The Court held the medical opinion was not competent because it was based upon a series of assumptions that lacked a factual basis, primarily the lone notation in the decedent's medical record indicating Hepatitis B from drug use, where there was no evidence in the subsequent 30 years of any intravenous drug use or the link to Hepatitis C.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012