D. St. Fleur v. WCAB (Anvil Int'l, Inc.), D. St. Fleur v. WCAB (Anvil Int'l, Inc.)

Claimant (Dieufort St. Fleur) injured his left shoulder at work on June 30, 2014; Employer accepted via a medical-only NCP and Claimant had shoulder surgery in September 2014.
Claimant stopped working after being given restrictions and was fired in January 2015 for refusing an offered light-duty sorting position; Claimant sought reinstatement and amendment of injury description (adding right elbow epicondylitis).
Employer filed a termination petition (effective August 3, 2015) based on the IME of Dr. Randall Culp, who found no objective support for Claimant’s complaints and would release him to work without restrictions.
WCJ credited Employer’s witnesses and Dr. Culp, discredited Claimant and Claimant’s doctors (Greve and Perry) as inconsistent or relying on subjective complaints, and granted the termination petition; WCJ denied reinstatement and amendment.
The Board affirmed, finding Dr. Culp’s testimony sufficient to support termination despite not using the precise phrase “fully recovered.” Claimant appealed to this Court, which affirmed the Board.

Issue	Claimant's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether Employer met burden to terminate benefits	Dr. Culp never said Claimant was "fully recovered," so evidence is insufficient	Dr. Culp testified Claimant can return to work without restrictions, needs no further treatment, and had no objective findings supporting pain	Termination affirmed: expert need not use magic words if testimony shows release to work and no objective basis for complaints
Credibility of medical and lay testimony	WCJ improperly discredited Claimant and his witnesses	WCJ properly weighed inconsistencies and relied on credible employer witnesses and IME	Affirmed: credibility and factfinding are for the WCJ and supported by substantial evidence
Competency of Dr. Culp’s opinion given he lacked some records (Dr. Greve)	Failure to review Dr. Greve’s records renders opinion incompetent	Missing records go to weight, not competency; Dr. Culp reviewed available records and examined Claimant	Affirmed: absence of later records affects weight only; opinion competent and adequate to support termination
Whether Claimant’s proposed injury amendment (right elbow epicondylitis) and reinstatement of benefits were supported	Claimant sought amendment and reinstatement based on continued symptoms	Employer: no objective findings or credible medical support for new/right elbow injury; Claimant refused examinations and light duty	Denied: medical evidence did not support amendment or reinstatement; Claimant failed to meet burden

Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Sacred Heart Medical Center), 720 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (failure to use phrase "fully recovered" is not fatal; review testimony as a whole).
Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (USAir), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa. 1997) (release to work without restrictions can suffice to show injury resolved).
Broughton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Disposal Corporation of America), 709 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (unequivocal medical opinion sufficient without "magic words").
Marriott Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Knechtel), 837 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (incomplete review of records affects weight, not competency, of expert testimony).
American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (expert opinion is incompetent only if based solely on inaccurate information).