C. Smith v. WCAB (Advanced Drainage Systems)
17 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 14, 2022Background
- Claimant (Christopher Smith) alleged a right supraspinatus tear after feeling a "pop" while aligning a large pipe at work in July 2017 and stopped working August 16, 2017; he later had surgery in January 2018.
- Claimant had significant preexisting right‑shoulder history: a 2003 car accident and a 2009 motorcycle accident with ongoing treatment (2010–2017), including injections and medication shortly before the alleged work event.
- Claimant’s treating expert (Dr. Roza) examined him once, opined the injury was acute and recent based on MRI findings (reactive bone marrow), but acknowledged he focused on treatment rather than causation and had not reviewed all records or an IME.
- Employer submitted an IME (Dr. Wolk) who, after examination and record review, concluded the shoulder problems were preexisting and not caused by the July 2017 incident.
- The WCJ found causation was not obvious, evaluated competing medical testimony, credited the IME over Claimant’s expert (citing greater record review, internal consistency, and focus on causation), and denied the claim; the Board affirmed and this Court likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Claimant prove his right‑shoulder injury was work‑related (causation)? | Smith: felt a pop at work causing supraspinatus tear; ME opined injury was acute and recent. | Employer: IME concluded shoulder condition preexisting from prior trauma; no unequivocal causal link to work. | WCJ credited IME; no causal relationship found; claim denied. |
| Were the WCJ’s credibility findings and choice of medical evidence reversible error? | Smith: WCJ erred in rejecting treating expert and credibility findings not supported. | Employer: WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and may accept one expert over another. | Court: WCJ’s credibility determinations and acceptance of IME were supported by substantial evidence; not reversible. |
| Was the medical evidence legally sufficient/unequivocal on causation? | Smith: treating ME’s MRI-based opinion was sufficient to show recent acute injury. | Employer: ME’s opinion lacked focus on causation and did not address complete records; evidence not unequivocal. | Court: Medical evidence was not sufficiently unequivocal on causation; burden unmet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (claimant bears burden to prove all elements of compensable claim)
- Cromie v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Anchor Hocking Corp.), 600 A.2d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (causal relation between injury and employment required)
- Cardyn v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Heppenstall), 534 A.2d 1389 (Pa. 1987) (unequivocal medical evidence required when causation is not obvious)
- Anderson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Penn Ctr. for Rehab), 15 A.3d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and evidentiary weight)
- Minicozzi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Indus. Metal Plating Inc.), 873 A.2d 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (WCJ may accept or reject any witness testimony)
- A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Verdi), 78 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (appellate court bound by WCJ credibility findings)
- Pryor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Colin Serv. Sys.), 923 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (competency of medical evidence requires sufficiently definite and unequivocal opinion)
- Jenkins v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Woodville State Hosp.), 677 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (acceptance of one medical expert over another is not reversible error)
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Skirpan), 572 A.2d 838 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (a single medical expert can provide a reasonable basis for a WCJ’s factual finding)