compensable injuries. C. The answer to the first legal issue concerning the establishment of a cause of action under Pennsylvania law now ascertained, we turn to the second legal issue in this case: whether, regardless of the com-pensability of their injuries, Appellants have no viable cause of action because the cause of their symptoms may be attributed to either their asbestos-related or the non-asbestos related conditions. In resolving this issue against Appellants, the trial court and the Superior Court OISA extensively relied upon the Superior Court’s panel decision in Quote v. American Standard, Inc., 818 A.2d 510 (Pa.Super.2003), for the proposition that Appellants’ cigarette smoking and obstructive lung diseases “may have caused [their] shortness of breath upon ex 2d 719 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Bushong Pontiac Co., 404 Pa. 382,
holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that if no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a question of law we apply de novo review holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury