Bemis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 615
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Bemis worked as a chef/manager for Perkiomen Grille Corp. with a long smoking history.
- On April 11, 2008, lifting kegs in a walk-in cooler caused chest and cheek pain that subsided after rest; he continued working.
- On April 14, 2008, additional chest pain occurred during lifting a heavy pot; he was hospitalized 2–3 days and later returned to work until May 27, 2008.
- May 28, 2008, Bemis underwent quintuple bypass surgery; Employer had replaced him by then.
- August 25, 2008, Bemis filed a petition to reinstate/claim for work-related injury allegedly worsened to surgery and total disability.
- WCJ denied the claim; Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that the medical testimony was unequivocal and remanded for benefits calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Dr. Skorinko's testimony unequivocal on causation? | Bemis argues Skorinko's testimony is unequivocal. | Employer argues the testimony was equivocal. | Yes; testimony deemed unequivocal; remand for benefits calculation. |
| Does the record establish a work-related, substantial contributing factor to Bemis's heart injury? | Work exertion was a substantial contributing factor. | Medical testimony insufficiently unequivocal. | Causation proven; remand for benefits determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135 (1993) (foundation for burden in claim petitions; legal standards rely on substantial evidence)
- Matlack, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Rennie), 71 Pa. Cmwlth. 270 (1983) (heart attack compensable if aggravated by employment; must be substantial contributing factor)
- Haddon Craftsmen, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Krouchick), 809 A.2d 434 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (causal question of law; improper to rely on equivocal testimony)
- Gumm v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (J. Allan Steel), 942 A.2d 222 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (employer liability when work-related factors are substantial cause)
- Inservco Insurance Services v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Purefoey), 902 A.2d 574 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (equivocality assessment of expert testimony")
- Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Lucas), 465 A.2d 132 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983) (medical testimony need not be absolute; can be equivocal if overall unequivocal)
- Lewis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 508 Pa. 360 (1985) (testimony must show professional opinion that injury came from assigned cause)