G. Simmons v. WCAB (Powertrack International), 2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 463

Simmons sustained a totally disabling work-related head injury in 2001, resulting in post-concussive syndrome.
Employer sought modification of benefits based on earning capacity after a labor market survey identified suitable jobs.
Key issue is whether Simmons’ physical condition changed since the last disability adjudication to warrant modification.
Dr. Fishman in 2008 diagnosed probable malingered neurocognitive dysfunction and approved five jobs as within Simmons’ ability.
The WCJ found Simmons capable of work at $320/week and largely incredibile in his testimony; the Board affirmed.
Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. WCAB requires medical evidence of a change in condition for modification; malingering can constitute such a change.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does malingering diagnosis show a change in condition?	Simmons argues Fishman’s malingering finding cannot create a change in condition.	Powertrack contends malingering constitutes a legal change in condition supporting modification.	Yes; malingering can be a change in condition warranting modification.
Did Simmons’ symptoms improve to enable gainful work?	Simmons asserts no credible improvement beyond prior findings.	Powertrack contends new testing indicates improved work ability.	Evidence supports improvement enabling certain full-time positions.
Are the court’s credibility findings supported by the record?	Simmons argues prior credibility should prevail over the new evaluation.	Powertrack relies on Dr. Fishman and surveillance to show reduced impediments.	Board credibility determinations upheld; evidence supports modification.

Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 919 A.2d 922 (Pa. 2007) (change-in-condition standard; medical evidence required for modification)
Delaware Cnty. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Browne), 964 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (change in condition required for modification; earning capacity context)