City of Philadelphia v. WCAB (Moore)
City of Philadelphia v. WCAB (Moore) - 1072 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Claimant injured his left knee on August 21, 2012, while removing a parking sign for the City of Philadelphia; Employer initially acknowledged a left-knee injury and issued compensation.
- Claimant returned to modified duty, underwent treatment by Employer-panel surgeon Dr. Gary Muller, then had arthroscopic surgery on January 24, 2013; persistent left-knee symptoms led Claimant to accept a lower-paying, lighter-duty Traffic Investigator position on June 17, 2013.
- Claimant filed a reinstatement petition (alleging decreased earning power as of June 17, 2013); Employer filed a termination petition asserting full recovery based on its independent exam (Dr. David Glaser).
- WCJ credited Claimant and treating physician Dr. Muller (who linked ongoing disability to the 2012 work injury and aggravation of underlying arthritis), discredited Dr. Glaser, granted reinstatement, and denied termination.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing Dr. Muller’s testimony was incompetent, that continuing wage loss was unrelated to the work injury, and that competent evidence required termination of benefits.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Dr. Muller’s testimony competent and credited, supporting reinstatement and denial of termination; scope of review limited to substantial-evidence, legal error, or constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (City of Philadelphia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of treating physician's testimony | Dr. Muller provided a reliable causation opinion based on treatment, imaging, and course of care. | Dr. Muller failed to account for prior knee history and thus his testimony was legally incompetent (relying on Newcomer). | Court: Dr. Muller’s testimony was competent and the case distinguishable from Newcomer; WCJ properly credited him. |
| Reinstatement (ongoing wage loss causation) | Claimant’s decreased earning power stems from ongoing disability caused by the 2012 injury (supported by Dr. Muller). | Employer argued Claimant’s wage loss is unrelated to the work injury. | Court: Substantial competent evidence (treating physician) supports that wage loss is continuation of the original injury; reinstatement proper. |
| Denial of termination petition | Claimant remains partially disabled from the work injury; treating physician refuted full recovery. | Employer’s examiner opined Claimant fully recovered and symptoms are degenerative, so benefits should be terminated. | Court: Employer failed to meet its heavy burden to prove full recovery; WCJ reasonably credited Dr. Muller over Dr. Glaser. |
| Standard of review (credibility/weight) | WCJ determinations of credibility and weight are binding if supported by substantial evidence. | Employer sought de novo reassessment of credibility and medical weight. | Court: Review limited to substantial-evidence/legal-error; refusal to reweigh credibility affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombardo v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Topps Company, Inc.), 698 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (WCJ is sole factfinder and may accept or reject witness testimony)
- Greenwich Collieries v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (substantial evidence definition and review standard)
- Newcomer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Ward Trucking Co.), 692 A.2d 1062 (Pa.) (treating physician testimony may be incompetent where based on false medical history)
- Bufford v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa.) (reinstatement requires proof that reduced earning power continues from original injury)
- Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (USAir, Inc.), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa.) (employer bears burden in termination; termination proper when employer's expert unequivocally proves full recovery)