Misinterpretation of §108(r) in establishing occupational disease. Claimant did not prove that workplace exposure to Group I carcinogens caused his malignant melanoma cancer.

The Commonwealth Court said that it was incumbent upon the claimant, a firefighter, to prove that his malignant melanoma was a type of cancer caused by the Group I carcinogens to which he was exposed in the workplace in order to establish an occupational disease. Only then do the presumptions come into play. The court concluded that the Appeal Board erred in its interpretation of § 108(r) of the Act. Additionally, the court held that the Board’s rejection of the expert testimony given by the employer’s expert as not rebutting the statutory presumption was in error since the testimony was relevant both to the initial question of whether the malignant melanoma was an occupational disease and to the employer’s rebuttal of the statutory presumption in § 301(e) of the Act. The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 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.}