J. Jackson v. WCAB (UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside)
33 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Claimant Joyce Jackson injured her left shoulder and neck at work on March 7, 2011; she had surgery and later moved to light-duty nursing education after difficulty handling full MICU caseload.
- Employer (UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside) filed a termination petition alleging Claimant had fully recovered.
- Independent medical examiner Dr. Jon Tucker (orthopedic surgeon) examined Claimant in Feb. and Aug. 2013 and opined she was fully recovered and could return to her pre-injury job without restrictions; WCJ credited his opinions as consistent with objective evidence.
- Treating physician Dr. Megan Cortazzo (PM&R and pain management) treated Claimant and testified regarding ongoing pain, trigger points, and scapular dyskinesis, but acknowledged full range of motion, full motor strength, and successful surgery.
- The WCJ rejected Claimant’s testimony of continuing disability as inconsistent with Dr. Tucker and found Employer met its burden to show work-related disability had ceased as of Dr. Tucker’s exams; the Board affirmed and Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ met Section 422(a) "reasoned decision" requirement | Jackson: WCJ failed to explain rejecting her testimony, failed to discuss FCEs, failed to explain crediting Dr. Tucker, and misallocated burden | Employer: WCJ sufficiently explained credibility choice, relied on objective evidence and Dr. Tucker's exams | Court: Affirmed — WCJ satisfied reasoned decision standard by summarizing testimony and articulating factual basis for crediting Dr. Tucker |
| Whether WCJ improperly ignored objective conflicting evidence (FCEs, trigger points, scapular dyskinesis) | Jackson: There was objective evidence contradicting Dr. Tucker that WCJ failed to address | Employer: WCJ addressed and weighed conflicting evidence, noting Dr. Tucker’s disagreements and lack of objective corroboration | Court: Affirmed — WCJ addressed and weighed conflicting evidence; weight is for WCJ, not appellate court |
| Whether WCJ shifted burden to Claimant to prove continuing disability | Jackson: WCJ required her to prove ongoing disability; failed to recognize chronic pain causation | Employer: Employer bore burden to prove disability ceased and did so via Dr. Tucker; WCJ correctly applied burden | Court: Affirmed — Employer met burden; WCJ did not improperly shift burden; chronic pain claims examined but lacked objective causal link |
| Whether Claimant’s subjective pain required finding of continuing work-related disability | Jackson: Subjective pain and treating physician testimony establish continuing disability | Employer: Subjective complaints not supported by objective findings; Dr. Tucker found no objective pathology causally related to work injury | Court: Affirmed — WCJ credited Dr. Tucker that pain lacked objective causal nexus to injury; subjective pain alone insufficient here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Crossing Construction Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (WCJ is ultimate factfinder and resolves credibility and weight issues)
- Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (Section 422(a) requires reasoned decision but does not allow appellate usurpation of WCJ factfinding)
- Amandeo v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (WCJ may satisfy reasoned decision requirement by summarizing testimony and providing logical factual basis for credibility determinations)
- Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Disposable Products), 853 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (WCJ must provide adequate explanation so reviewing court need not guess basis for credibility choices)
- Baumann v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Kellogg Company), 147 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (employer bears burden in termination petitions to prove work-related disability has ceased)
- Gallo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (United Parcel Service), 504 A.2d 985 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (employer must show no causal connection between continuing disability and work injury)
- Bufford v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2010) (scope of appellate review of Board orders limited to substantial evidence, legal error, and constitutional claims)