K. Ritrovato v. WCAB (Rite Aid)
1684 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Claimant (Ritrovato), a Rite Aid pharmacy manager, alleged a work injury on June 6, 2012 after lifting a printer and sought disability benefits beginning June 9, 2012.
- Claimant treated with her family physician (Dr. Altomonte), underwent physical therapy, and was later evaluated by Dr. Bruce Barris (internal medicine) and Dr. Christian Fras (orthopedics, IME).
- Dr. Barris (exam Jan 21, 2013) found degenerative changes on MRI (L3-4 bulge; L4-5 small central protrusion), treated symptoms, and restricted Claimant to part‑time sedentary work; his causation testimony was equivocal.
- Dr. Fras (IME Nov 30, 2012) found largely normal objective findings, signs of symptom magnification, and no mass effect or nerve compression; he opined Claimant had recovered by Nov. 30, 2012.
- The WCJ credited Claimant and Dr. Barris for injury occurrence but credited Dr. Fras regarding duration and concluded Claimant recovered as of Nov. 30, 2012; the Board affirmed and this Court reviewed substantial-evidence challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Ritrovato's Argument | Rite Aid's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ’s finding that Claimant fully recovered by Nov. 30, 2012 is supported by substantial evidence | Dr. Barris’ testimony (and treating notes) support ongoing disability and causal connection to June 6, 2012 incident | WCJ permissibly credited Dr. Fras’ IME over Dr. Barris; credibility is for the WCJ | Court held substantial evidence supports WCJ’s finding of recovery as of Nov. 30, 2012 (affirmed) |
| Whether findings (e.g., FOFs 18 & 29) are internally inconsistent | FOF 18 (summary of Dr. Barris) conflicts with FOF 29 (recovery by Nov. 30) | FOF 18 merely summarized testimony; WCJ explicitly credited Dr. Fras on duration | Court held no conflict; WCJ properly summarized testimony then made credibility determinations |
| Whether Dr. Barris provided an unequivocal causation opinion tying injury to lifting the printer | Claimant asserts Barris’ conditional statement supports causation/aggravation by the work event | Barris’ statement was equivocal (prefaced by “if”) and did not adopt causation definitively | Court found Barris’ testimony equivocal; reasonable for WCJ to decline to credit it for causation |
| Whether appellate court may reweigh evidence or overturn credibility determinations | Claimant asks court to prefer Barris over Fras | Employer contends appellate review is limited; credibility is for WCJ | Court reiterated it will not reweigh evidence or disturb WCJ credibility findings; affirmed Board order |
Key Cases Cited
- Berardelli v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bureau of Personnel State Workmen’s Insurance Fund), 578 A.2d 1016 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Skirpan), 612 A.2d 434 (Pa. 1992) (appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or review credibility)
- Wagner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Anthony Wagner Auto Repairs & Sales, Inc.), 45 A.3d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Minicozzi v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Industrial Metal Plating, Inc.), 873 A.2d 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (critical inquiry is whether evidence supports the findings made)
- Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mills), 116 A.3d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (WCJ has authority over witness credibility)