Brownsville General Hospital, Inc. v. WCAB (Berish), Brownsville General Hospital, Inc. v. WCAB (Berish)

Background

Claimant (Patricia Berish) sustained a work-related low-back injury in 2005 that ultimately led to paralysis after surgery; employer accepted the injury and litigated related benefit issues.
Employer purchased a used wheelchair-accessible van (Van 2) for Claimant without her input; Claimant later purchased a newer wheelchair-accessible van (Van 3) herself.
Parties stipulated Van 3 cost $72,058.56; Van 2 was sold for $6,000 and Van 3 was later sold for $30,000, leaving $36,058.56 in controversy.
WCJ found Claimant’s 2011 surgery and paralysis were causally related to the 2005 injury, and granted Claimant’s petition ordering Employer to pay for Van 3; the Board affirmed.
Employer appealed, raising (1) alleged bad faith/non‑opportunity to repair, (2) entitlement to a new van, (3) reliability of Van 2, and (4) whether the WCJ issued a reasoned decision.

Issues

Issue	Berish's Argument	Brownsville/Employer's Argument	Held
1. Whether Claimant acted unreasonably (bad faith) by buying Van 3 without giving Employer an opportunity to repair Van 2	Purchase reasonable because Van 2 did not meet medical needs and was unreliable; delay and red tape justified immediate purchase	Employer argued Claimant never gave Employer notice/opportunity to repair Van 2 and thus acted unreasonably (bad faith)	Court: No bad‑faith finding; Claimant’s failure to notify did not negate entitlement because Employer had chosen Van 2 without Claimant’s input and Van 2 was unreliable and unsuitable
2. Whether Claimant is entitled to a new (not used) van	New van was necessary and reasonable because prior used vans did not meet medical needs or provide reliable transport	Employer argued claimant’s lifestyle showed use of used vehicles so she should not get a new van (avoid windfall)	Court: New van appropriate here given circumstances; Act doesn’t require brand‑new in all cases, but facts supported employer liability for a new van
3. Whether the WCJ erred in finding Van 2 unreliable despite employer expert testimony	Claimant’s husband described multiple mechanical, space, lift and starting problems making Van 2 unreliable	Employer’s expert said similar vehicle types can last long with maintenance and opined generally on durability	Court: WCJ reasonably found Van 2 unreliable; employer expert did not inspect Van 2 specifically and thus did not undermine credibility of claimant’s evidence
4. Whether the WCJ’s decision was reasoned given alleged testimonial conflicts	Claimant argued testimony was consistent and WCJ adequately explained crediting witnesses	Employer argued irreconcilable conflicts (e.g., battery CCA) undermined reasoned decision	Court: WCJ issued a reasoned decision: explained credibility findings, resolved minor conflicts, and provided adequate factual and legal rationale under Section 422(a)

Key Cases Cited

Griffiths v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Seven Stars Farm, Inc.), 943 A.2d 242 (Pa. 2008) (van can be an orthopedic appliance; employer’s obligation depends on facts)
Zuback v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Paradise Valley Enterprise Lumber Co.), 892 A.2d 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (replacement of home stair glides held compensable like other orthopedic appliances)
Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (reasoned decision standard for WCJ under Section 422(a))
Stepp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (FairPoint Commc’ns, Inc.), 99 A.3d 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (scope of appellate review over Board decisions)