Dillon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

Because this court has previously held that testimony by a medical witness who refuses to acknowledge the causal presumption afforded by section 301(e) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)1 is not competent, I respectfully dissent.

James Dillon (Claimant) worked as a firefighter for the City of Philadelphia (Employer) for more than twenty-one years. Claimant filed a claim petition alleging an injury in the nature of heart disease caused by exposure to harmful substances in the course of his employment. Employer denied the allegations, and the case was…