While an expert must recognize the occupational causal presumption given to firefighters under § 301(a), this does not preclude an expert from attributing lung disease to non-occupational factors.

The claimant alleged that he developed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as a result of 22 years of work as a firefighter for the employer and caused him to stop working. The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied his petition, concluding the claimant did not benefit from the presumption that his COPD was a work-related occupational disease under § 301 of the Act. The judge also concluded that the claimant did not meet his burden of proving a work injury because his medical evidence was equivocal. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the judge’s decision. In his appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the employer’s medical expert was incompetent because he refused to acknowledge the occupational causal presumption given to firefighters under the Act. By law, expert testimony that adamantly rejects any causal relationship between exposure to the hazards of firefighting and lung disease is incompetent. In reviewing the testimony given by the expert, though, the court concluded that he did not say that a causal relationship did not exist between exposure to the hazards of firefighting and lung disease. Rather, he opined that if an individual has other significant causal factors, he would not attribute firefighting as the number one cause.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 1, 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}