Baumann v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 147 A.3d 1283

Baumann (Claimant) sought review of a Board decision affirming a WCJ on remand who granted Kellogg's 2010 termination petition and claimant's penalties petition.
Claimant initially injured May 5, 2007 in a work car accident; NCP issued and benefits paid, later amended to include right C-6 radiculopathy.
2009 Termination Petition denied by WCJ Doman; subsequent Modification Petition and Penalty Petition were filed thereafter.
May 4, 2010 IME by Dr. Bennett concluded Claimant fully recovered and could return to full-duty work; Kellogg filed the 2010 Termination Petition.
On remand, WCJ Rago found a change in Claimant’s condition since the 2009 adjudication and granted the 2010 Termination Petition, while also denying substantial penalty and awarding 0% penalty.
Board affirmed, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, holding there was substantial evidence of change in condition and discretion to award 0% penalties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board err in affirming termination based on change in condition?	Baumann argues Kellogg failed to prove a change since 2009 adjudication.	Kellogg asserts Dr. Bennett’s May 2010 findings and claimant’s post-2009 activities show a change in condition sufficient for termination.	No error; substantial evidence supports change in condition.
Did the Board err in affirming 0% penalties on the Penalty Petition?	Baumann contends penalties should have been imposed for violation of the Act.	Kellogg argues penalty discretion allowed 0% given credibility and lack of significant harm.	No error; Board and WCJ did not abuse discretion in awarding 0% penalties.

Udvari v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (USAir, Inc.), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (change in physical condition can establish change in disability with credible medical opinion)
Elberson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Elwyn, Inc.), 936 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (credibility and medical testimony govern termination decisions)
Lewis v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 919 A.2d 922 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (employer must show a change in physical condition since prior adjudication)
Folmer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 958 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (change in condition analysis may rely on pre- and post-adjudication evidence)
Simmons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Powertrack Intl.), 96 A.3d 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (symptom-based change can support earning-power change without new diagnoses)
Delaware Cnty. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Browne), 964 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer must show a change in condition since last adjudication)
Gumm v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Steel), 942 A.2d 222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (penalties standard and burden-shifting framework)