L. Rafaele v. WCAB (Life Path, Inc.)
L. Rafaele v. WCAB (Life Path, Inc.) - 1334 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- Claimant (Rafaele) alleged a July 26, 2013 work injury to her low back/right leg while changing a 200-lb client and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Employer initially paid temporary benefits for a low back strain, then stopped and denied the claim after receiving contrary evidence; Employer later filed a protective termination petition.
- Claimant treated at a medical center and with neurologist Dr. Roy Jackel (treatment included lidocaine injections); she reported ongoing right‑side back pain, thigh pain, and foot numbness.
- Employer submitted surveillance video (Aug. 29–30, 2013 and Mar. 6–7, 2014) showing Claimant performing bending, lifting, driving, grocery shopping, and carrying multiple bags/boxes with fluid movement.
- WCJ found Claimant not credible based on demeanor, surveillance, lack of objective findings (negative MRI/EMG), and inconsistencies about prior back history; WCJ also rejected Dr. Jackel’s opinion and discounted Dr. Kahanovitz’s opinion insofar as it relied on Claimant’s not‑credible account.
- Board affirmed the WCJ; Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Claimant failed to meet her burden to establish a compensable injury because her subjective complaints were impeached by surveillance and other evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical evidence was uncontroverted that Claimant sustained a work injury | Rafaele: Employer’s IME (Dr. Kahanovitz) acknowledged a work injury, so medical evidence is uncontroverted | Employer: IME relied on Claimant’s account; WCJ rejected that account, so IME lacked foundation | Court: No — once claimant testimony was found not credible, physicians’ opinions based on that account lacked foundation and did not prove injury |
| Whether WCJ erred by rejecting Claimant’s testimony and evidence of injury | Rafaele: She promptly reported the injury, sought treatment, and a coworker could corroborate but Employer never called witness | Employer: Claimant bore the burden to prove injury; surveillance and medical record inconsistencies justified WCJ credibility finding | Court: No — WCJ permissibly weighed surveillance, demeanor, and medical evidence and explained rationale |
| Whether surveillance evidence can be used to impeach subjective pain claims | Rafaele: Surveillance did not show lifting of heavy items and thus cannot contradict her pain claims | Employer: Surveillance properly impeaches claimant’s reported incapacity and was admissible | Court: Surveillance admissible and properly used to impeach claimant’s testimony about incapacitating pain |
| Whether Board/WCJ capriciously disregarded material evidence | Rafaele: WCJ ignored or misapplied evidence favorable to her | Employer: WCJ considered the evidence and provided reasoned findings | Court: No capricious disregard — findings supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained |
Key Cases Cited
- Soja v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates), 33 A.3d 702 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (claimant bears burden to prove compensable injury)
- Rossi v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (surveillance films admissible to impeach claimant’s testimony)
- Minicozzi v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Industrial Metal Plating Inc.), 873 A.2d 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (WCJ may reject testimony in whole or in part)
- Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (appellate review includes assessment for capricious disregard of evidence)
- Station Square Gaming L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 927 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2007) (definition of capricious disregard of competent testimony)