Thomas, Thomas & Hafer Attorneys Jim Tinnyo, Evan Jenkins and John Morgan recently prevailed in successfully having a claim for kidney cancer due to alleged firefighting exposures dismissed against the employer. The litigation involved a claim against a co-defendant employer, as well, before a Pittsburgh area Workers’ Compensation Judge. The claimant was a volunteer firefighter for the co-defendant employer for several years before ending his firefighting career with our client employer. The Workers’ Compensation Judge, while finding that the claimant’s firefighting exposure was a substantial contributing factor to the claimant’s kidney cancer, ruled that the co-defendant employer was liable for the claim and dismissed the claim petition against our employer.

In so ruling, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found credible the opinions of the defense medical experts that it was not medically possible for the claimant’s limited service with the employer to have caused the claimant’s kidney cancer. Attorneys Tinnyo and Jenkins skillfully cross-examined the claimant to elicit critical testimony showing a lack of significant enough exposure to cancer-causing carcinogens, even though the employer was the last employer for whom the claimant was a firefighter. Rather, the WCJ found it was the claimant’s exposure to carcinogens with co-defendant employer that was a substantial contributing factor to his development of kidney cancer.

Further, testimony from the claimant was elicited on cross-examination reflecting that he did not provide notice to the employer of his claim within the required 120 days of when the claimant knew or should have known that his kidney cancer was related to firefighting, with the Workers’ Compensation Judge ruling that the claim against the employer was procedurally time-barred.

Attorney Morgan skillfully crafted the persuasive brief convincing the Workers’ Compensation Judge that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer and that co-defendant employer should be responsible under the responsible employer doctrine, given that the claimant’s exposure to carcinogens was materially insignificant with the employer.

For more information on this case, contact Jim Tinnyo at jtinnyo@tthlaw.com, Evan Jenkins at ejenkins@tthlaw.com or John Morgan at jmorgan@tthlaw.com.