C. Martzen v. WCAB (Jo-Ann Stores)
2043 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Dec 27, 2017Background
- Claimant (Martzen), a store manager, sustained a work-related lumbar injury after a ladder fall on January 12, 2011; Employer (Jo-Ann Stores) initially issued a medical-only Notice of Compensation Payable but paid wage-loss benefits until she returned to work ~6 weeks later.
- Claimant alleged a second work injury on July 6, 2012 and later disfigurement; the WCJ and appellate tribunals found the 2012 event was not a new compensable injury and that symptoms stemmed from the 2011 incident.
- Employer filed a Suspension Petition (alleging Claimant returned to work Feb 28, 2011), and later a Termination Petition; Claimant filed Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions claiming ongoing disability from the 2011 injury and statutory violations by Employer.
- The WCJ (Aug. 24, 2015) granted Claimant’s Reinstatement and Penalty Petitions, denied Employer’s Termination Petition, and granted Employer’s Suspension Petition for Feb 29, 2011–July 6, 2012; the WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony and found Claimant’s medical expert more credible than Employer’s.
- The Board (Dec. 14, 2016) reversed insofar as it granted reinstatement and penalty and denied termination—finding Claimant’s medical expert equivocal—while affirming the suspension period. Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board applied wrong scope/standard of review | Martzen: Board failed to respect WCJ credibility findings and misapplied review standard | Employer: Board may reweigh medical evidence and find expert testimony equivocal | Court: Vacated in part—the Board failed to apply Latta burden rule when reviewing reinstatement; remand limited to reassessing reinstatement without the equivocal medical testimony |
| Whether Board correctly found Claimant’s medical expert equivocal | Martzen: Dr. Verna provided corroborating causation and continuity testimony supporting reinstatement | Employer: Dr. Verna’s testimony tied symptoms to a 2012 injury and shifted when asked to assume 2012 did not occur, making it equivocal | Court: Agreed with Board that Dr. Verna’s testimony was equivocal and therefore incompetent as medical proof |
| Whether Board applied correct burden of proof for reinstatement | Martzen: Under Latta, claimant’s own credible testimony suffices to trigger burden shift to employer; expert evidence not required | Employer: Claimant must prove continuing disability (and expert testimony necessary to meet burden) | Court: Held Board erred by not applying Latta; claimant’s testimony, credited by the WCJ, shifts burden to employer—remand required to determine if employer rebutted that evidence without Dr. Verna’s testimony |
| Whether Board’s decision conflicts with prior determinations / improperly considered separate litigation | Martzen: Board improperly relied on prior litigation dismissal of 2012 injury to discredit medical testimony | Employer: Prior proceedings and medical findings justify discounting Dr. Verna | Court: Did not reach full resolution of these issues; remanded limited to reassessing reinstatement under Latta; other arguments not decided due to disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Post Gazette), 954 A.2d 724 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (medical testimony is equivocal when premised on mere possibilities)
- Bufford v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2010) (standard describing claimant’s burden for reinstatement petitions)
- Latta v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Latrobe Die Casting Co.), 642 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 1994) (claimant’s credible testimony that a prior work-related injury continues is sufficient to shift burden to employer)
- Lombardo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Topps Co., Inc.), 698 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (WCJ is sole arbiter of credibility and weight of evidence)