Arvilla Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 277
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant sustained hip, back and shoulder injuries from a July 20, 2004 incident, with an NCP accepting total disability benefits for a labral tear and related conditions.
- Claimant underwent December 2004 right hip arthroscopy and October 2005 total hip replacement; medical bills were adjudicated in March 2007 as work-related.
- December 2009 modification petition sought to change Claimant’s status from total to partial, asserting full recovery from hip and back injuries but not from hip.
- Employer secured an impairment rating evaluation (IRE) by Dr. Moldovan on June 3, 2010 outside the 60-day window, finding 10% whole-body impairment and claiming MMI.
- WCJ credited some opinions but found Claimant not at MMI for the back injury, thus denying modification based on Dr. Moldovan’s IRE; Board affirmed this denial.
- This appeal challenges the denial of Employer’s IRE modification petition, arguing substantial evidence supported MMI and that the IRE should have changed disability status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IRE evidence supported modification from total to partial. | Moldovan established MMI and <50% impairment; WCJ ignored competent IRE evidence. | SCiamanda's testimony and treatment records undermined Moldovan; IRE not credible for MMI. | Remand to determine credibility and whether Moldovan's IRE supports <50% impairment. |
| Whether the WCJ properly weighed IRE evidence against other medical opinions. | Dr. Moldovan was the only competent IRE evidence; credibility determination should rely on Moldovan. | SCiamanda's testimony showed ongoing symptoms; the WCJ may reject IRE evidence for credibility concerns. | Board vacated; remand for credibility findings based on Moldovan deposition and report. |
| Whether the IRE was conducted in accordance with AMA Guides and MMI definition. | MMI sufficient for IRE under AMA Guides; impairment rating valid if MMI attained. | MMI not established; IRE improper due to non-MMI status and non-recoverable symptoms. | Remand to assess if Moldovan’s impairment rating reflects MMI per AMA Guides. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diehl v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (I.A. Construction), 607 Pa. 254, 5 A.3d 230 (2010) (sets framework for IRE admissibility and credibility)
- Combine v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation), 954 A.2d 776 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (MMI and impairment rating standards under AMA Guides)
- Westmoreland Regional Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pickford), 29 A.3d 120 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (timing of MMI relevance to IRE consideration)
- Jackson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Boeing), 825 A.2d 766 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (palliative care and symptom management in impairment context)
- Pec Contracting Engineers v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hutchison), 717 A.2d 1086 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (requires reasoned basis for rejecting uncontroverted evidence)