Claimant’s evidence satisfied the three-prong test to support the Section 301(f) presumption that a firefighter’s chronic myeloid leukemia was caused by workplace exposure to a carcinogen.
The claimant was a firefighter who developed chronic myeloid leukemia that was diagnosed in 2014. He learned his cancer may be related to work while attending a training seminar in 2019. At that seminar, an instructor spoke about “firefighter cancer law.” After that, the claimant filed a Claim Petition.
The claimant testified he had been volunteer firefighter from 2003 to 2016, but his testimony lacked detail regarding the actual number of fires he fought during that time. The workers’ compensation judge granted the Claim Petition, finding a connection between his cancer and a Group I carcinogen. The judge further found the claimant established that he served four or more years in continuous firefighter duties, with exposure to a Group I carcinogen, and that he passed a physical prior to engaging in firefighting activities. The judge also found that timely notice of the injury was provided and that the claimant acted with reasonable diligence to determine a causal connection between his service and his cancer by filing a petition after he attended the training session.
On appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed.
The employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court, raising multiple issues. First, the employer argued the claimant failed to give timely notice of his injury. According to the employer, the claimant had 120 days from the “triggering event,” attendance at the training, to give notice and failed to do so. The court rejected this argument.
The court further rejected the employer’s argument that the claimant failed to file a timely petition because he did not bring his claim within 300 weeks of his last exposure date, thereby entitling him to the presumption outlined in Section 301(f) of the Act. According to the employer, the claimant did not prove his last day of exposure to the hazard that caused his cancer. The court held the Claim Petition was filed well within the 300-week period required for the Section 301(f) presumption.
The court also rejected the employer’s argument the claimant failed to establish all of the requirements necessary to trigger Section 301(f)’s statutory presumption in that the claimant failed to show that he served four or more years in continuous firefighting duties. The court noted there was no dispute the claimant served as a voluntary firefighter from 2003 through 2016 and responded to fire calls during that time. The claimant testified that his years of service were as a firefighter, including fighting fires and making emergency responses. There was no break in the claimant’s 13-year service. According to the court, Section 301(f)’s first prong shows that the continuance requirement relates to years of service, not the type of firefighting duties or the frequency of those duties during the period of service.
The court further held the evidentiary record established the claimant showed a direct exposure to a Group I carcinogen and that the medical evidence presented by the claimant was sufficient to establish direct exposure to fire smoke.
The court affirmed the decisions of the workers’ compensation judge and the Appeal Board.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.