Elliott Company and Constitution State Services, LLC v. WCAB (Mattucci)
786 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 11, 2018Background
- Claimant (Jesse A. Mattucci) injured his right middle finger at work in May 2013; Employer accepted the injury and paid benefits, then entered a supplemental agreement when Claimant returned to modified duty in December 2014.
- Employer sought suspension of Claimant’s ongoing temporary partial disability benefits in May–June 2015, asserting Claimant’s reduced earnings were due to an economic downturn (reduced overtime) and not the compensable injury, and that Claimant earned wages equal to similarly situated co-workers.
- Employer presented testimony (supervisor, risk manager, area manager) and payroll exhibits showing reduced overtime company-wide and comparisons of Claimant’s wages/overtime with co-workers.
- Claimant testified he retained work restrictions that prevented him from performing some duties alone (so he was skipped for some overtime under the CBA) and that he is a group leader with a higher hourly rate than most co-workers.
- The WCJ found Employer’s witnesses not credible and concluded Employer failed to prove the loss in Claimant’s earning power was caused by an economic downturn or that Claimant earned as much as similarly situated employees; WCJ ordered continuation of partial disability benefits.
- The Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court likewise affirmed, holding the WCJ’s credibility determinations and reasoned decision were supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer proved Claimant’s reduced earnings were due to an economic downturn rather than the work injury | Claimant argued his restrictions caused reduced earning capacity (skipped for overtime) | Employer argued company-wide reduction in overtime from the oil downturn caused lower earnings | Held: WCJ reasonably discredited Employer’s evidence; Employer failed to meet its burden to show reduction was not injury-related |
| Whether Claimant is earning wages equal to similarly situated employees under Section 306(b)(1) | Claimant argued he was not similarly situated (group leader, higher hourly rate) and earnings comparisons were unreliable | Employer argued payroll exhibits show Claimant’s combined wages equal co-workers’ wages | Held: WCJ found co-workers were not similarly situated and comparisons unreliable due to overtime refusals and different pay; Employer failed to prove equality |
| Whether the WCJ capriciously disregarded uncontradicted Employer evidence or failed to issue a reasoned decision under Section 422(a) | Claimant contended WCJ’s findings were supported and adequately explained | Employer contended WCJ ignored overwhelming unrefuted evidence and provided insufficient reasoning | Held: Decision was reasoned; WCJ adequately explained credibility determinations and did not capriciously disregard evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Costello), 747 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2000) (employer bears burden to prove entitlement to modification/suspension of benefits)
- Donahay v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Skills of Cent. PA, Inc.), 109 A.3d 787 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (reduction in earnings not compensable if not caused by work injury; economic causes can negate entitlement)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (Section 422(a) requires a reasoned decision sufficient for meaningful appellate review)
- Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USX Corp./Fairless Works), 862 A.2d 137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (distinguishing capricious disregard from proper rejection of uncredited evidence)