J.D. Velazco v. WCAB (Land Tech Enterprises, Inc,)
444 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Claimant (Velazco), a landscape laborer, was injured in June 2015 as a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle collision; Employer (Land Tech) accepted the injury as a cervical sprain and paid benefits.
- Claimant received emergency and emergent-center treatment; diagnostic imaging (June/August 2015 MRIs, August CT) showed only mild degenerative changes and no herniation, fracture, or acute intracranial injury.
- Employer obtained an IME by Dr. Katz (Sept. 14, 2015), who found normal cervical range of motion, no paraspinal spasm, negative straight leg raise, normal gait, and concluded Claimant had fully recovered with essentially normal diagnostic studies.
- Employer filed a termination petition (Dec. 2015) alleging full recovery as of Sept. 14, 2015; Claimant disputed the termination and relied on treating physician Dr. Levinstein’s opinions and his subjective pain complaints.
- The WCJ credited Dr. Katz, rejected the portions of Dr. Levinstein’s opinion inconsistent with objective findings, concluded Claimant had fully recovered, and granted termination; the Board affirmed, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer met burden to terminate benefits by proving full recovery | WCJ erred; treating docs did not concede recovery and objective records support ongoing injury | Dr. Katz’s IME shows normal exam and diagnostic studies; Employer met burden | Employer met its burden; benefits properly terminated |
| Whether WCJ improperly favored IME over treating physician | WCJ should have given greater weight to Dr. Levinstein’s records and symptoms | WCJ may credit IME when it is better supported by objective findings | WCJ permissibly credited IME and rejected treating physician where unsupported by objective data |
| Whether subjective pain without objective findings must be accepted | Claimant’s subjective pain complaints required acceptance absent objective proof to contrary | In absence of objective findings, WCJ may reject subjective complaints as not credible | WCJ may reject subjective complaints when contradicted by objective exams and imaging (fact question) |
| Whether the WCJ issued a reasoned decision | Decision lacks adequate explanation for weighing evidence | WCJ explained why Dr. Katz was credible and why Dr. Levinstein was rejected, satisfying reasoned-decision standard | Decision was reasoned and adequate for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Casne v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer bears burden to prove disability has ceased)
- Udvari v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (USAir), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa. 1997) (employer may satisfy burden with unequivocal IME showing full recovery and no objective findings supporting pain)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (reasoned decision requirement: WCJ must permit adequate appellate review)
- Jamieson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chicago Bridge & Iron), 691 A.2d 978 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (WCJ has exclusive province to weigh credibility and resolve conflicting evidence)
- Milner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Main Line Endoscopy Ctr.), 995 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (affirming WCJ credibility determinations)