278 A.3d 969
Pa. Commw. Ct.2022Background
- Claimant Franklin Montano injured his back and right shoulder at work on May 30, 2017 and returned to modified duty as a trainer on June 13, 2017; Employer issued a medical-only NCP for upper back/shoulder complaints.
- Claimant was discharged on August 13, 2018 for alleged performance issues involving incomplete/incorrect training paperwork; he refused to sign the termination report and filed a Reinstatement Petition seeking reinstatement of TTD benefits.
- Claimant underwent work-related lumbar microdiscectomy on September 12, 2018 and extensive right-shoulder surgery on June 14, 2019; treating physicians related both surgeries to the 2017 injury.
- WCJ found the injuries work-related and that Claimant was partially disabled (TPD) except during post-op total disability periods (TTD); WCJ concluded the August 2018 discharge was for cause (falsified/incomplete paperwork), unrelated to the injury, so Claimant was not entitled to post-termination TTD benefits.
- The termination report was admitted as a business record; WCJ credited employer testimony and documents over Claimant’s assertion that termination was injury-related or retaliation for union activity.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; this Court affirmed the Board, holding employer proved lack of good faith (misconduct) and that failure to follow progressive discipline or unemployment-law standards did not alter the workers’ compensation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Montano's Argument | Advance Auto Parts' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s post-injury termination entitles him to reinstated TTD benefits | Termination was related to his work restrictions/injury and thus TTD should be reinstated | Termination was for cause (performance/falsified paperwork) and unrelated to injury, so suitable work was available | WCJ/Board/Court held termination was for cause unrelated to injury; no reinstatement of post-termination TTD; partial and post-op TTD/TPD awards upheld |
| Admissibility/credibility of Ms. Ramos’s testimony and termination report | Ms. Ramos’s testimony was hearsay/incompetent and not credible | Testimony corroborated business-record termination report; report was admitted without objection | Court held the report was a business record and credible; admissible and substantial evidence supporting WCJ’s finding |
| Whether Employer met burden to show Claimant acted in bad faith/misconduct | Employer failed to prove the level of misconduct required to cut off benefits | Employer proved pattern of submitting incomplete/incorrect training paperwork amounting to falsification/lack of good faith | Court held employer proved lack of good faith (misconduct) as a factual finding for WCJ; employer met its burden |
| Effect of Employer’s failure to follow its progressive-discipline policy | Employer’s failure to follow progressive discipline (and unemployment standards) precludes finding of bad faith | Progressive-discipline/unemployment standards are inapplicable; workers’ comp uses a different, lesser "lack of good faith" standard | Court held failure to follow employer policy or unemployment-law standards does not negate employer’s showing of lack of good faith under workers’ compensation law |
Key Cases Cited
- Vista International Hotel v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Daniels), 742 A.2d 649 (Pa. 1999) (framework: partially disabled claimant generally keeps TPD; employer avoids TTD by proving suitable work available or claimant’s lack of good faith)
- Virgo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (County of Lehigh–Cedarbrook), 890 A.2d 13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (business records admissible and may constitute substantial evidence supporting WCJ findings)
- Sharkey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Federal Express), 786 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (credibility determinations and weighing of evidence are solely for the WCJ)
- Bortz v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reznor Division of FL Industries), 683 A.2d 259 (Pa. 1996) (distinguishes unemployment-law willful misconduct from workers’ compensation lack-of-good-faith standard)
- Sauer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.), 26 A.3d 531 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (employer can establish lack of good faith by proving claimant discharged for misconduct)
- Champion v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Glasgow, Inc.), 753 A.2d 337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (bad-faith determination is a factual finding for the WCJ)
- PMA Reinsurance Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (unemployment-law progressive-discipline principles discussed; not controlling in workers’ compensation)
- Brady v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 544 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (unemployment cases on willful misconduct distinguished from workers’ compensation analysis)