Hussey Copper, Ltd. and SWIF v. WCAB (Chiles)
2338 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Claimant Samuel Chiles injured his low back operating a forklift on September 11, 2004; Employer accepted liability for a lumbosacral strain.
- Employer sought termination after defense exams: Dr. Failla (2007) and Dr. Werries (2010) concluded full recovery; Claimant’s treating physician Dr. Blinn consistently opined Claimant remained disabled.
- WCJ Cohen (2009) denied Employer’s first termination petition, crediting Dr. Blinn. WCJ Tobin (2011) later granted a second termination petition based on Dr. Werries.
- The Board remanded the 2011 grant for reconsideration to determine whether Employer proved a change in Claimant’s condition since the prior adjudication (WCJ Cohen’s 2009 decision).
- On remand, WCJ Jones reviewed the record, credited Dr. Blinn over Dr. Werries, found no change in condition from the 2009 baseline, and denied termination; the Board affirmed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s order, holding the WCJ acted within the remand scope and his findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Employer's Argument | Claimant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WCJ exceeded the Board’s remand scope | WCJ Jones improperly reweighed evidence and relied on prior defense doctor comparisons (Dr. Failla) instead of limiting to whether a change occurred | Remand authorized a determination on change in condition; WCJ may reassess credibility and weigh evidence within that remit | WCJ did not exceed the remand: he addressed whether Employer proved a change since WCJ Cohen’s 2009 adjudication and stayed within the Board’s parameters |
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding no change in Claimant’s condition since the prior adjudication | Employer asserted its later examinations (Dr. Werries) proved full recovery and a change in condition | Claimant maintained symptoms persisted; treating physician Dr. Blinn’s testimony showed continued/worsened disability and was credible | Substantial evidence supported WCJ Jones’s credibility finding for Dr. Blinn and his conclusion that Employer failed to prove a favorable change in condition |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinert v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Stroh Companies), 816 A.2d 403 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (remand may be issued when findings lack substantial evidence or crucial issues are unresolved)
- Budd Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kan), 858 A.2d 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (WCJ has authority on remand only within Board-prescribed parameters)
- Clark v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wonder Bread Co.), 703 A.2d 740 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (WCJ exceeds scope when addressing matters outside remand directive)
- Lakes Apartments v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (when remand is limited, WCJ must confine findings to stated purpose)
- Teter v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pinnacle Health System), 886 A.2d 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (WCJ must explain credibility determinations on remand and may reach a different result)
- Lewis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 919 A.2d 922 (Pa. 2007) (employer seeking later termination must prove a change in condition since prior adjudication)
- Delaware County v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Browne), 964 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (baseline for subsequent termination is prior adjudicated condition)
- Prebish v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dept. of Public Welfare, Western Center), 954 A.2d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (same principle: need separate finding of improvement since prior adjudication)
- Lombardo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Topps Co., Inc.), 698 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (WCJ is sole factfinder and may accept or reject medical testimony in whole or part)
- McCloskey v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (J.H. France Refractories, Inc.), 460 A.2d 237 (Pa. 1983) (on remand, WCJ may reverse original decision after making required credibility determinations)