D. Perez v. WCAB (GMRI, Inc.)
779 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Nov 21, 2016Background
- Claimant Perez worked ~14 years as a food-prep worker at Red Lobster; diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and had right (Feb 2013) and left (Oct 2013) carpal tunnel release surgeries.
- Perez took medical leave for surgeries, submitted a short-term disability form that did not attribute the condition to work, and later took an extended non-medical leave in Feb 2014; her employment ended when she sought to return in April 2014.
- Perez filed a workers’ compensation claim and penalty petition on Sept. 18, 2014, alleging a cumulative injury with last day of work Feb. 19, 2014.
- Employer denied the claim, asserted lack of notice, and produced its manager who testified Perez never reported a work-related injury; Employer’s records contained only the disability form.
- Medical evidence: Claimant’s expert (Dr. Katolik) opined de Quervain’s was work-related (based on high repetitive work and >40 hours/week); Employer’s expert disputed de Quervain’s and found recovery from carpal tunnel. WCJ found employer witness credible, rejected Claimant and daughter testimony and Dr. Katolik’s opinion.
- WCJ denied claim and penalty petitions for failure to give required notice within 120 days and for lack of credible medical causation; Board affirmed; Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | GMRI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez gave statutory notice of a work-related injury within 120 days of last day worked | Perez contended she informed managers in 2012–2013 that her diagnoses/surgeries were caused by repetitive work and requested WC forms | Employer said no notice of a work-related injury was given; only a disability form (not attributing work causation) was in file | WCJ credited employer, rejected claimant testimony; notice not proved within 120 days; claim barred |
| Whether the discovery rule delayed the 120-day notice period | Perez argued she lacked knowledge of work-relatedness until later | Employer relied on claimant’s own 2012–2013 statements showing awareness | Court: discovery rule inapplicable because claimant believed condition was work-related as early as 2012–2013; notice period ran from last work day |
| Whether Perez met burden to prove work causation for cumulative injury | Perez relied on Dr. Katolik’s opinion linking de Quervain’s to repetitive work | Employer relied on Dr. DiBenedetto disputing de Quervain’s and stating claimant recovered | WCJ found claimant’s expert not credible (based on inconsistent work-history facts); medical causation not proved; claim denied |
| Whether WCJ’s credibility determinations were reviewable | Perez argued testimony was sufficient and WCJ erred | Employer argued credibility is for WCJ and supported by demeanor and documentary evidence | Court held WCJ’s credibility findings are binding unless arbitrary/capricious; here they were supported and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentex Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morack), 23 A.3d 528 (Pa. 2011) (claimant bears burden to prove timely notice; notice must indicate possible work-relatedness)
- Penske Logistics v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Troxel), 132 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (appellate standard and claimant’s burden on notice)
- Kocher’s IGA v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dietrich), 729 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (adequacy of notice where claimant reported pain at work)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Williams), 851 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2004) (for cumulative repetitive-trauma injuries, notice period runs from last day worked)
- Taulton v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (USX Corp.), 713 A.2d 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (medical proof of causation required for gradual injuries; if medical evidence rejected, claimant fails burden)