Amazon.com Svcs. LLC v. E.L. Then Roman (WCAB), 185 C.D. 2022

Background:

On August 22, 2019 Claimant injured her right leg at work; Employer initially acknowledged the injury as "work-related right leg pain" on an NTCP/NCP.
Employer filed a Termination Petition on September 29, 2020, asserting Claimant fully recovered as of September 8, 2020; Claimant filed a Review Petition asserting the NCP description was incomplete and her condition worsened.
After hearings, WCJ Hemak denied Employer’s Termination Petition and granted Claimant’s Review Petition, amending the work-injury description to include lumbar radiculitis and disc herniations at L4-5 and L5-S1.
Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Chun, testified (within a reasonable degree of medical certainty) that the August 22, 2019 work injury caused lumbosacral pain with radicular symptoms and aggravated preexisting disc degeneration; he also opined it was possible the small herniations resulted from the trauma.
Employer’s expert, Dr. DiBenedetto, testified claimant recovered and symptoms were non-work-related; cross-examination of Dr. Chun revealed he had not ruled out systemic causes (e.g., effects of diabetes) and could not distinguish degenerative vs. traumatic etiology without a prior MRI.
The WCJ credited Dr. Chun and Claimant, rejected Dr. DiBenedetto, and the Board affirmed; Employer appealed arguing (1) Dr. Chun’s testimony was equivocal/incompetent, (2) the WCJ capriciously disregarded evidence, (3) the WCJ failed to render a reasoned decision, and (4) termination should have been granted. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Claimant)	Defendant's Argument (Employer)	Held
1. Whether WCJ relied on equivocal or legally incompetent medical testimony	Dr. Chun testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury caused/aggravated lumbar radiculitis and herniations	Dr. Chun’s opinions were equivocal/possibility-based and failed to rule out systemic causes, making them legally incompetent	Court: Dr. Chun’s testimony, read as a whole, was sufficiently definite and competent; admissible and credited
2. Whether WCJ capriciously disregarded substantial competent evidence	Claimant relied on Dr. Chun and her testimony showing onset after injury	Employer argued record showed preexisting degenerative disease and possible systemic causes (e.g., diabetes) that explained symptoms	Court: No capricious disregard; WCJ permissibly credited Dr. Chun over Dr. DiBenedetto and supported findings with evidence
3. Whether WCJ failed to render a reasoned decision	Claimant asserted WCJ adequately explained credibility and reliance on treating physician’s consistent testimony	Employer argued WCJ gave cursory analysis and failed to reconcile conflicting evidence of preexisting/systemic conditions	Court: WCJ provided a reasoned decision specifying evidence relied upon and objective bases for credibility choices
4. Whether WCJ erred by denying Employer’s Termination Petition	Claimant argued amended injury description prevented termination	Employer contended if description remained only right-leg pain, termination should have been granted based on employer expert’s testimony	Court: Moot—because WCJ permissibly amended injury description, denial of termination stands

Key Cases Cited

Huddy v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Air), 905 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (claimant seeking to amend NCP must prove increased disability and causal relationship by unequivocal medical testimony)
PetSmart, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sauter), 219 A.3d 703 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (defining unequivocal vs. equivocal medical testimony)
Liveringhouse v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Adecco), 970 A.2d 508 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (expert testimony must be read as a whole; statements of likelihood do not automatically render opinion incompetent)
Am. Contracting Enters., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (testimony excerpts do not necessarily render an expert incompetent)
Marriott Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Knechtel), 837 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (lack of complete records affects weight of opinion, not competency)
Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (reasoned decision requirement—WCJ must state evidence basis and rationale)
Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (WCJ not required to discuss all evidence but must explain rejection of competent evidence when necessary)
Dep’t of Corr. SCI-Chester v. Faison (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 266 A.3d 714 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (standard for capricious disregard and substantial evidence review)