Arnold v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
110 A.3d 1063
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Claimant injured his lumbar and thoracic spine in a 2007 work accident; employer accepted the injury and paid total disability benefits of $389.50/week.
- Claimant filed a Review Petition (before a WCJ) and a Specific Loss Petition (directly to the Board) asserting a total loss of use of both legs and seeking specific-loss benefits for each leg.
- The WCJ credited claimant’s testimony and Dr. Fried’s report as to total loss of use of both legs, awarded ongoing total disability under Section 306(a), but expressly declined to decide whether the leg loss was separate and distinct from the accepted back injury (stating that determination rested with the Board).
- The Board affirmed the WCJ, denied the Specific Loss Petition without taking further evidence, and explained it lacked a basis to award concurrent specific-loss benefits in addition to total disability benefits.
- Claimant appealed, arguing procedural due process violations (no Board hearing), that the Board ignored the WCJ’s factual findings about separateness, and that the Board abused discretion by refusing to allow concurrent multiple specific-loss awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Defect in appellant brief (missing conclusion) — dismissal? | Claimant sought reversal/remand for concurrent specific-loss awards; omission harmless. | Employer urged dismissal for rule violation. | Court declined dismissal; substantial compliance and no prejudice. |
| 2. Due process — Board refusal to hold evidentiary hearing on Specific Loss Petition | Claimant: entitled to personal hearing before Board to present testimony on economic advantage. | Employer: claimant already had hearing before WCJ on identical facts; no new evidence needed. | No due process violation; Board could rely on WCJ record and was not required to hold another evidentiary hearing. |
| 3. Did Board improperly reject WCJ’s factual finding that leg loss was separate from back injury? | Claimant: WCJ credited Dr. Fried that leg loss was separate and distinct; Board disregarded that. | Board/Employer: WCJ explicitly declined to make that legal finding; Board correctly noted absence of a WCJ finding. | Claim rejected; WCJ did not make a finding that leg loss was separate and distinct, so Board did not misstate facts. |
| 4. Whether Board abused discretion by refusing to allow concurrent multiple specific-loss awards (or allow specific-loss election to double weekly pay) | Claimant: economic advantage—should be allowed two concurrent specific-loss awards (one per leg) or combine with suspended total disability to double weekly pay. | Employer: claimant seeks new theory on appeal and multiple concurrent awards are not authorized; Turner supports Board discretion; Fields/Walton require aggregation/consecutive payment. | Board did not abuse discretion. Multiple specific-loss awards for same incident must be paid consecutively and aggregated; absent unique economic justification (not shown here), total disability remains the presumptive optimum under Section 306(c)(23). |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 389 A.2d 42 (Pa. 1978) (Board has discretion under §306(c)(23) to choose the benefit schedule that provides the optimum financial result for claimant).
- Fields v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 104 A.3d 79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (multiple specific-loss awards from one incident must be paid consecutively and aggregated; claimant cannot obtain concurrent multiple awards to increase weekly rate).
- Walton v. Cooper Hosiery Co., 409 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (legislative intent aligns specific-loss benefit computation with total-disability rates; disfavors disparate weekly treatment).
- Faulkner Cadillac v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tinari), 831 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (concurrent specific-loss and disability awards may be upheld where injuries are separate and unrelated; not applicable where injuries arise from single incident).