Dougherty v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board: (QVC, Inc.)
102 A.3d 591
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant injured his Achilles tendon in January 2009 while a corporate video producer; he returned to work in June 2009 with medical restrictions and benefits were suspended.
- Employer later eliminated the video producer position (April 2010) for economic reasons and reassigned Claimant to a less-physical writer-producer role at the same pay.
- About a year later Claimant was discharged for unsatisfactory work performance; he seeks reinstatement of suspended wage-loss benefits as of the discharge date.
- WCJ credited Claimant’s treating physician that the injury and restrictions continued, but found Claimant could perform the writer-producer job and that his layoff was for poor performance, not the injury; WCJ denied reinstatement.
- The Board affirmed, concluding Claimant was not entitled to the presumption that his loss of earnings was caused by the work injury.
- The appellate court vacated and remanded because the WCJ applied the wrong comparison (writer-producer versus Claimant’s pre‑injury video‑producer duties) and therefore failed to apply the legal presumption of causation that should have shifted the burden to Employer.
Issues
| Issue | Dougherty's Argument | QVC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant was entitled to the presumption that layoff-related loss of earnings was caused by his work injury | He returned to his pre‑injury video‑producer position with restrictions, so loss of earnings after layoff is presumed to be causally related to the continuing injury | Layoff resulted from unsatisfactory performance unrelated to the physical restrictions | Court held claimant was entitled to the presumption because he returned to his pre‑injury position with restrictions and the WCJ compared the wrong position (writer‑producer) instead of pre‑injury duties |
| Which position controls the presumption analysis (pre‑injury job vs. later reassignment) | Compare post‑injury duties to pre‑injury video‑producer duties to determine whether restrictions required modification | Employer emphasized claimant’s ability to perform the sedentary writer‑producer job without modification | Held that the proper comparison is claimant’s pre‑injury job duties; the reassignment to a different, sedentary job does not negate the presumption when claimant returned to the pre‑injury job with restrictions |
| Burden of proof after presumption arises | No need for claimant to prove causation; burden shifts to employer to rebut presumption | Employer must show layoff was caused by reasons other than the injury, e.g., claimant’s bad faith or misconduct | Held burden shifted to employer to prove loss of earnings was not caused by injury; employer must show bad faith/misconduct or other non‑injury cause |
| Whether unsatisfactory performance alone rebuts the presumption | Presumption remains unless employer shows claimant acted in bad faith or misconduct that caused discharge | Employer argued unsatisfactory performance justified denial of reinstatement | Held unsatisfactory performance alone does not automatically overcome the presumption; employer must show lack of good faith or other specific statutory/decisional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bufford v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2010) (clarifies burden shifting for reinstatement of suspended benefits)
- Folk v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 802 A.2d 1277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (layoff from modified/light‑duty job gives rise to presumption of causation)
- Teledyne McKay v. Workmens’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 688 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (continuation of injury may be proven by claimant’s testimony)
- Magulick v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 704 A.2d 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (under suspension employer remains responsible for consequences of the injury)
- Pieper v. Ametek‑Thermox Instruments Div., 584 A.2d 301 (Pa. 1990) (comparison should focus on pre‑injury duties when assessing need for job modification)
- Stevens v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 760 A.2d 369 (Pa. 2000) (presumption applies when claimant terminated from modified/light‑duty position; layoff for performance does not automatically negate presumption)
- Shop Vac Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 929 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (employer may rebut presumption by proving claimant’s bad faith rejection of suitable work or misconduct causing discharge)