Green v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (US Airways)
155 A.3d 140
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant Susan Green, a former US Airways flight attendant, injured her left knee in 1993; Employer initially accepted a meniscus tear and later the left medial meniscus tear and left lateral femoral condyle lesion.
- Employer suspended benefits in 2005 after WCJ Parker found Claimant could perform her pre-injury job; Board affirmed (with modification to the injury description).
- Claimant sought reinstatement in 2008, alleging worsening left knee condition; she presented treating surgeon Dr. William G. Carson, who testified the injury had progressed and caused disability.
- WCJ Santoro (2009) denied reinstatement and penalties, finding Claimant not credible and Dr. Carson’s opinions unpersuasive; this Court (Green I) remanded, concluding the WCJ misapplied the law to a credited opinion.
- On remand the WCJ again denied reinstatement, accepting that the condition worsened but rejecting that the worsened condition caused loss of earning power, based largely on Claimant’s lack of credibility and Dr. Carson’s reliance on her subjective complaints.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, holding the WCJ’s credibility-based findings were proper, within scope of remand, and that the WCJ did not apply a heightened burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | US Airways' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ’s decision satisfied the Section 422(a) “reasoned decision” requirement | WCJ failed to address uncontroverted objective evidence and relied improperly on demeanor | WCJ adequately explained the reasons for crediting/discrediting evidence and need not discuss all evidence | Affirmed: WCJ met reasoned-decision standard by addressing evidence material to issues; not required to address everything |
| Whether WCJ capriciously disregarded unrebutted medical testimony (Dr. Carson) | WCJ improperly discredited Dr. Carson for relying on Claimant’s history; Sewell prohibits discrediting an expert solely because it relies on claimant history | WCJ permissibly rejected doctor’s disabling opinion where it rested on claimant testimony the WCJ found not credible | Affirmed: Rejection permissible where expert’s opinion relied on claimant’s discredited statements; consistent with Sewell |
| Whether WCJ exceeded scope of remand (Green I instructed remand for proper treatment of Dr. Carson’s testimony) | WCJ changed credibility and again rejected disabling opinion beyond remand scope | Remand required a new decision in accordance with opinion, but did not require same outcome; WCJ may reassess credibility if within remand bounds | Affirmed: WCJ stayed within remand; may reach a different result if supported and explained (Teter controlling) |
| Whether WCJ applied an improperly heightened burden of proof for reinstatement | Claimant says WCJ effectively required more than proving recurrence of disability affecting earning power | Employer says Claimant still bore burden to prove recurrence of disability and WCJ denied reinstatement for failure to meet that burden | Affirmed: WCJ applied correct standard (Latta) — claimant failed to prove recurrence causing loss of earning power |
Key Cases Cited
- Latta v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Latrobe Die Casting Co.), 642 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 1994) (reinstatement requires proof that earning power is again adversely affected by the work injury)
- Sewell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 772 A.2d 93 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (medical opinion based on claimant history can be competent unless the underlying history is rejected)
- Teter v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pinnacle Health System), 886 A.2d 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (on remand a WCJ must explain credibility findings but may reach a different result if within remand scope)
- PEC Contracting Engineers v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hutchinson), 717 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (reasoned-decision standard requires explanation for accepting/rejecting evidence but does not eliminate WCJ’s credibility prerogative)
- Greenwich Collieries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1995) (appellate courts generally defer to WCJ credibility determinations)