A-Z Learning Daycare v. WCAB (DiGiorgio)
A-Z Learning Daycare v. WCAB (DiGiorgio) - 918 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Claimant, a preschool teacher for A‑Z Learning Daycare (Employer), slipped twice on ice in the daycare parking lot on February 11, 2013 after briefly returning to her truck, injuring her lower back and right knee.
- She sought treatment, was evaluated by two board‑certified orthopedists (Drs. Cibischino and Williams), underwent right knee surgery (partial meniscectomies) and was treated for lumbar injuries; both doctors attributed her injuries to a slip‑and‑fall mechanism.
- Employer terminated Claimant in May 2013, allegedly for medical‑appointment interference; Claimant filed workers’ compensation claims against Employer and the Uninsured Employer Guarantee Fund (UEGF).
- WCJ found Claimant’s testimony and the doctors’ opinions credible, awarded temporary total disability from June 4, 2013 (date of knee surgery) ongoing, ordered Employer ( uninsured) to pay medical expenses and reasonable litigation costs.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; Employer appealed arguing (1) medical testimony was incompetent because doctors lacked an accurate work‑related history and (2) Employer discharged Claimant for cause. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board and WCJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Claimant) | Defendant's Argument (Employer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the orthopedists’ opinions competent to establish causation? | Doctors linked injuries to slip‑and‑fall mechanism; causation established. | Doctors lacked an accurate history that the fall occurred at work, so their testimony is incompetent. | Court held location detail irrelevant to medical causation; physicians’ opinions were competent and credible. |
| Did Claimant give timely notice and establish work‑relatedness? | Testimony, time card, sick‑time entry, and Hardy’s acknowledgements support work‑related injury and timely notice. | Argued uncertainty about where the fall occurred. | Court accepted WCJ’s credibility findings and documentary entries; work‑relatedness and notice established. |
| Was Claimant terminated for cause (which would bar benefits)? | Termination was for medical appointments interfering with work, not for willful misconduct. | Employer contended credible evidence supported termination for cause (e.g., incident report). | WCJ found no credible evidence of discharge for cause; Court declined to reweigh credibility and affirmed. |
| Is Employer liable for medical and litigation costs as uninsured employer? | Employer lacked workers’ compensation insurance; claimant entitled to medical and litigation cost awards. | Employer disputed liability or facts underlying coverage. | WCJ found Employer uninsured; Court affirmed award of medical expenses and litigation costs (with noted subrogation re: insurer payments). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rife v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Whitetail Ski Co.), 812 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (claimant bears burden to prove causation and disability).
- Haney v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Patterson‑Kelley Co.), 442 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (medical testimony must be unequivocal to support award when required).
- Lewis v. Commonwealth, 498 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1985) (medical testimony reviewed as a whole to determine equivocality).
- ARMCO, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Carrodus), 590 A.2d 827 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (medical witness testimony is unequivocal if, after foundation, witness states belief that facts exist).
- Bemis v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Perkiomen Grille Corp.), 35 A.3d 69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (competency of medical testimony is a question of law subject to plenary review).
- WaWa v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Seltzer), 951 A.2d 405 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party on appeal).
- Milner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Main Line Endoscopy Ctr.), 995 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (WCJ free to accept or reject any witness testimony).
- Ward v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Phila.), 966 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (credibility and weight determinations are for the WCJ).
- Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pointer), 604 A.2d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (willful misconduct may bar benefits where loss of earnings due to misconduct, not disability).