E. Wilson v. WCAB (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission), 605 C.D. 2017

Claimant Edward Wilson suffered a work-related neck and low-back injury on March 19, 2003; Employer (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission) accepted strains/sprains to the cervical and lumbar spine.
Claimant returned to work in 2006, had subsequent injuries and benefit proceedings in 2010–2013, returned to work in January 2012, and stopped working on March 27, 2014.
Claimant filed a reinstatement petition (April 2, 2014) alleging his 2003 condition worsened in March 2014; Employer filed a termination petition (Feb. 27, 2015) asserting recovery as of August 13, 2014. The petitions were consolidated.
Evidence at hearing: treating pain specialist Dr. Sofia Lam (testifying by deposition) said Claimant’s 2003 injury worsened and he was unable to work; Employer’s orthopedic examiner Dr. Christian Fras (deposition) said Claimant had recovered and could work without restriction and noted symptom magnification. Employer’s supervisor testified Claimant had not complained of work-incapacity after January 2012 and had recent disciplinary issues.
WCJ initially denied reinstatement and granted termination; the Board remanded for additional credibility findings. On remand the WCJ again denied reinstatement and granted termination, crediting Dr. Fras over Dr. Lam and finding Claimant not credible. The Board affirmed; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant proved he was unable to work due to worsening of the 2003 injury (reinstatement)	Wilson: pain worsened in March 2014 and he could not work; treating physician supports inability to work	Employer: medical examiner shows no worsening and Claimant can work; workplace facts undercut claim	WCJ credited Employer’s expert and found Claimant not credible; reinstatement denied
Whether Employer proved Claimant had recovered from the 2003 injury (termination)	Wilson: remained disabled from 2003 injury per treating physician	Employer: unequivocal medical evidence of recovery and no objective findings tying current complaints to the work injury	WCJ credited Employer’s expert and granted termination; recovery proven
Whether WCJ adequately explained credibility determinations for witnesses who testified by deposition	Wilson: treating physician should be given more weight; WCJ erred in rejecting her testimony	Employer: WCJ may weigh evidence and reject treating physician if justified	Court: WCJ provided adequate reasons for credibility findings; treating status is a factor but not controlling
Burden of proof allocation between petitions	Wilson: (implicit) WCJ should find in favor given treating physician evidence	Employer: bears burden to prove recovery on termination; WCJ found Employer met that burden	Court: burden rules applied correctly; Claimant failed his burden on reinstatement; Employer met burden on termination

Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (WCJ must explain credibility determinations for witnesses who did not testify in person)
Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Center for Rehab), 15 A.3d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and may accept or reject medical testimony)
Bufford v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2010) (claimant bears burden on reinstatement to show adverse effect on earning power)
Pryor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Colin Service Systems), 923 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (employer bears burden on termination to show disability ceased or current disability unrelated to work injury)
Jackson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Resources for Human Development), 877 A.2d 498 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (standards for termination proof by employer)