Anderson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 726
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Claimant sustained a back injury at work on May 8, 2006, with a notice of compensation payable issued June 8, 2006.
- Employer suspended benefits on August 11, 2006 after Claimant was medically cleared to full duty, though she did not return to work and later claimed ongoing disability.
- Claimant petitioned in March 2007 to reinstate benefits and to review the NCP, then sought to change the injury description to include lumbar and thoracic disc herniations with radiculopathy.
- Medical evidence included Dr. Bowden and Dr. Stempler supporting work-related disc herniations and ongoing disability; Employer relied on Dr. Mandel who attributed degenerative, non-work-related causes.
- WCJ denied reinstatement and review, and the Board affirmed, concluding the evidence supported recovery and non-work-related causation, respectively.
- Claimant timely appealed, arguing improper suspension basis, lack of automatic reinstatement, and mischaracterization of symptoms causally linked to the work injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspension under Section 413(c) was proper | Claimant argues suspension was unlawful where she was medically cleared but did not return to work. | Employer argues failure to challenge the suspension means admission to return to work and suspension under § 774.2(2). | Proper suspension based on return to work at no loss of earnings; no automatic reinstatement. |
| Whether the reinstatement petition required a change in earning power and burden shifting | Claimant contends the reinstatement petition should have been granted based on renewed impairment. | Employer argues the WCJ properly weighed credibility and found no adverse earning power post-2006. | Claimant failed to prove adverse earning power; WCJ's credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether the NCP description was wrong to exclude herniations and radiculopathy | Claimant seeks modification of the NCP to reflect additional disc issues and radiculopathy caused by work. | Employer contends causation and extent of herniations remained disputed; Dr. Mandel found degenerative causes. | WCJ's denial of modification upheld; Board affirmed substantial evidence supporting degenerative etiology over work causation. |
| Whether Claimant proved additional conditions were work-related and compensable | Claimant presented mid and low back herniations linked to work injury. | Mandel testified degenerative, non-work-related causes; the WCJ was free to credit his testimony over Claimant's experts. | Claimant failed to prove causation linking herniations to the May 8, 2006 injury; WCJ's findings sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments Division, 526 Pa. 25 (Pa. 1990) (burden to show adverse earning power in reinstatement petitions)
- General Electric Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Valsamaki), 140 Pa.Cmwlth. 461, 593 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (credibility determinations are for the WCJ; appellate court defers)
- Nevin Trucking v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Murdock), 667 A.2d 262 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (appellate review respects WCJ's credibility and evidentiary weight)
- Vinglinsky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Installation), 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 15, 589 A.2d 291 (Pa.Cmwlth.1991) (limited role of appellate review for legal errors and findings)
- Birmingham Fire Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kennedy), 657 A.2d 96 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (burden to prove compensability of additional conditions)