J.B. Doerfler v. WCAB (Winegardner & Hammons, Inc.), J.B. Doerfler v. WCAB (Winegardner & Hammons, Inc.)

Claimant (pro se) injured while shoveling at work in Feb 2013; Employer’s March 2013 NCP accepted a right shoulder injury and a lumbar spine sprain/strain.
Claimant later filed petitions (July 2013) seeking to expand the injury description to include a concussion/post‑concussive syndrome, left shoulder injury, and cervical spine injury.
Employer filed termination petitions for the lumbar injury and any alleged head injury; a compromise and release was approved in June 2015 but left medical‑benefit issues unresolved.
WCJ credited independent examiner Dr. Dean Sotereanos, who examined both shoulders and opined the work injury caused only the right‑shoulder rotator cuff tear, found possible malingering on the left, and found no work‑related left shoulder or cervical injury; WCJ rejected left‑shoulder expansion.
The Board affirmed the WCJ, clarifying that medical benefits for the accepted right shoulder remain payable and that the WCJ did not terminate right‑shoulder benefits.
This appeal challenges only the denial of Claimant’s petition to add a left shoulder injury to the accepted injury description.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant met burden to expand NCP to include left shoulder injury	Doerfler asserted contemporaneous reports, prior MRI approval requests, and statements by adjuster/case manager support inclusion of left shoulder	Employer relied on WCJ’s crediting of independent examiner who found left shoulder not causally related and noted malingering; argued Claimant failed to prove causation	WCJ and Board affirmed: Claimant failed to meet burden; credible medical evidence supported denial of left‑shoulder expansion

Jeanes Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hass), 872 A.2d 159 (Pa. 2005) (claimant seeking to amend injury description bears burden to prove accepted NCP is incomplete)
Rife v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Whitetail Ski Co.), 812 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (claimant must prove causal relationship and extent/duration of disability)
Haney v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Patterson‑Kelley Co.), 442 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (when medical testimony on causation is required, it must be unequivocal)
Griffiths v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (WCJ may accept or reject any witness testimony, in whole or in part)
Sell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (LNP Eng’g), 771 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2001) (appellate tribunals may not reweigh WCJ’s credibility determinations)
Acme Mkts., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Brown), 890 A.2d 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (WCJ need not analyze every evidentiary detail; a reasoned decision need only articulate bases for findings)