From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Phila. v. Sladek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 1, 2017
167 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017)

Opinion

No. 405 EAL 2016

03-01-2017

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FIRE DEPARTMENT v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (SLADEK) Petition of: Scott Sladek


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court, in a case of first impression, committed an error of law by misinterpreting Section 108(r) to require a firefighter diagnosed with cancer caused by an IARC Group I carcinogen to establish exposure to a specific carcinogen that causes his/her cancer in order to gain the rebuttable presumption provided by the law?
(2) Whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law by concluding that a legislatively-created presumption of compensability may be competently rebutted by a general causation opinion, based entirely upon epidemiology, without any opinion specific to the firefighter/claimant making the claim?


Summaries of

City of Phila. v. Sladek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 1, 2017
167 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017)
Case details for

City of Phila. v. Sladek

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FIRE DEPARTMENT v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Mar 1, 2017

Citations

167 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017)

Citing Cases

Sessions v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

B.Our first occasion to interpret Section 108(r) of the Act was in City of Philadelphia Fire Department v.…

City of Phila. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

In dicta, the Commonwealth Court states that an entitlement to the evidentiary presumption relieved Sladek…