IA Construction Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rhodes), 139 A.3d 154

Background

Jeffrey Rhodes (Claimant) was awarded total disability benefits after a 2005 work-related vehicular accident; injuries included traumatic brain injury and other neurological and musculoskeletal conditions.
Employer (IA Construction and Liberty Mutual) obtained a late independent medical examination (IRE) by Dr. M. Bud Lateef, who assigned a 34% whole-person impairment under the AMA Guides and testified by deposition; Claimant presented no contrary evidence.
Employer filed a modification petition based on the IRE (requested after the statutory 60-day automatic window), triggering the ordinary administrative adjudicatory process before a WCJ and then the WCAB.
The WCJ rejected Dr. Lateef’s opinion, citing concerns that he had “lumped” injuries and that his cognitive/neurological exam was cursory and outside his specialization; WCAB majority affirmed, dissent thought report adequate.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that a qualified IRE physician who followed statutory methodology cannot have his uncontradicted opinion rejected absent record evidence to the contrary (effectively treating such IREs as controlling).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Commonwealth Court, holding that WCJs may weigh and reject IRE opinions (including uncontradicted ones) where the reasoning is supported and, here, the WCJ reasonably found Dr. Lateef’s neurological assessment underdeveloped.

Issues

Issue	Rhodes' Argument	IA Construction's Argument	Held
May a WCJ reject an IRE physician’s opinion presented without contradiction?	WCJ may reject; factfinder’s weighing is proper and supported.	Court should treat a qualified IRE opinion as presumptively persuasive when uncontradicted.	WCJ may reject uncontradicted IRE opinion; Commonwealth Court erred in adopting an uncontradicted-medical-evidence rule.
Does the IRE physician’s specialization limit a WCJ’s ability to discount his opinion on TBI?	WCJ permissibly considered that Dr. Lateef lacked neurology-specific evaluation for brain injury.	Specialization mismatch irrelevant if physician met statutory qualifications and followed AMA methodology.	Specialization and an underdeveloped neurological exam justified giving lesser weight to the opinion.
Is an employer estopped from having its IRE disregarded because the Bureau, not employer, designates the examiner?	Bureau designation does not bar substantive vetting of the examiner’s opinion by the WCJ.	Because employers cannot choose the IRE doctor, the factfinder should not lightly reject a Bureau-selected examiner’s opinion.	Bureau selection does not immunize IRE opinions from ordinary factfinding scrutiny.
What is the appropriate standard of appellate review when a prevailing party produced no contrary evidence?	WCJ’s reasoned credibility/weight determinations control; substantial-evidence review applies to findings with a record basis.	Commonwealth Court invoked a special “capricious disregard” constraint to protect uncontradicted IREs.	Appellate courts should not adopt an uncontradicted-medical-evidence rule; the WCJ’s reasoned weighing can sustain rejection of uncontradicted evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Gardner v. WCAB (Genesis Health Ventures), 585 Pa. 366, 888 A.2d 758 (Pa. 2005) (discusses IRE process and Section 306(a.2))
Diehl v. WCAB (I.A. Constr.), 607 Pa. 254, 5 A.3d 230 (Pa. 2010) (IRE results get no special weight over other examinations)
Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. WCAB (Marlowe), 571 Pa. 189, 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (scope of substantial-evidence review of agency findings)
Daniels v. WCAB (Tristate Transp.), 574 Pa. 61, 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (WCJ is ultimate factfinder and arbiter of credibility and weight)
Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (addressed AMA Guides delegation issue; noted but not dispositive here)
Combine v. WCAB (Nat’l Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.), 954 A.2d 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (discusses MMI and timing of impairment ratings)