C. Martzen v. WCAB (Jo-Ann Stores)
436 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 2, 2016Background
- Claimant (Martzen), a store supervisor, sought workers’ compensation for injuries she alleged occurred July 6, 2012 when a clothing rack tipped and knocked her to the ground, causing neck, back and leg problems and later cervical surgery.
- Claimant had a prior accepted work injury (January 12, 2011) for lumbar strain; a separate suspension petition related to that injury was pending in another proceeding.
- Employer denied the July 6, 2012 work-related injury. Testimony conflicted: Claimant and her treating chiropractor (Dr. Verna) connected her symptoms to the July 6 event; Employer witnesses (co-worker Finisdore and supervisor Brown) and Employer’s IME (Dr. Kahanovitz) disputed that Claimant fell or that the rack struck her upper body.
- The WCJ found Claimant not credible, credited Employer witnesses and Dr. Kahanovitz over Dr. Verna, and concluded Claimant failed to prove a July 6, 2012 work injury; WCJ also (erroneously, but harmlessly) referenced the 2011 injury in his findings.
- The Board affirmed; Claimant appealed to this Court, which limited review to the certified record and affirmed the Board’s order denying the claim petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Martzen's Argument | Jo-Ann Stores' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant proved a July 6, 2012 workplace injury causing current need for treatment | Martzen argued the record supports her testimony that the rack struck her and knocked her down, causing neck and back injuries and need for surgery | Employer argued witnesses and records show she did not fall or sustain trauma to neck/back on July 6 and prior treatment/degeneration explain her condition | Court held WCJ’s credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence; Claimant failed to meet her burden for a July 6, 2012 work injury |
| Whether the WCJ capriciously disregarded employer evidence or misstated medical causation | Martzen contended the WCJ ignored evidence (including employer IME) that could support at least a lumbar aggravation on July 6 | Employer relied on IME and witness testimony to show no neck trauma and only preexisting/previous injury explains condition | Court held no capricious disregard: IME did not unequivocally link ongoing disability to July 6 event and Dr. Verna’s opinion relied on rejected history |
| Whether the WCJ’s reasoning satisfied Section 422(a) (reasoned decision) | Martzen claimed errors in credibility determinations and sought reversal/remand | Employer maintained WCJ provided specific, objective reasons for credibility and medical-choice findings | Court held the WCJ provided adequate, objective reasons; no violation of reasoned decision requirement |
| Whether the case should be remanded/ consolidated with the 2011 suspension proceeding | Martzen asked consolidation/remand so the WCJ could consider later deposition evidence from the related 2011 matter | Employer argued review is confined to the certified record and consolidation is discretionary | Court declined remand/consolidation; review limited to certified record and consolidation is discretionary |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (claimant bears burden to prove entitlement)
- Giant Eagle v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bensy), 651 A.2d 212 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (challenge to credibility scheme of errors)
- A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verdi), 78 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (appellate review tests for substantial evidence supporting WCJ findings)
- Walter v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Evangelical Community Hospital), 128 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (WCJ is ultimate factfinder and credibility arbiter)
- Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (standard for appellate review where capricious disregard of evidence claimed)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transportation), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (Section 422(a) reasoned decision requirement explained)