M. Rovenolt v. WCAB (Reliant Senior Care Holdings, Inc. and HM Casualty Ins. Co.), M. Rovenolt v. WCAB (Reliant Senior Care Holdings, Inc. and HM Casualty Ins. Co.)

Claimant (Michelle Rovenolt), an LPN, alleged a work-related shoulder/neck injury on August 6, 2013 after a resident grabbed her; she saw a panel physician the next day and worked light duty through August 30, 2013 when released to full duty.
Claimant later reported persistent shoulder problems, treated with Dr. John Kline (first seen December 6, 2013 on counsel’s referral), who diagnosed impingement and imposed light-duty restrictions.
Claimant testified she self-modified duties (e.g., not maneuvering medication cart) and that limitations affected her ability to work; she was suspended and later terminated after a workplace incident unrelated to discipline-for-cause findings.
Employer’s supervisor testified Claimant was working full duty on August 31, 2013 and recommended termination for creating a hostile work environment; WCJ found both Claimant and supervisor credible about the discharge circumstances and found termination was not for cause.
WCJ rejected Dr. Kline’s opinions (noting he first saw Claimant months after discharge and at counsel’s referral) and found Claimant was performing her pre-injury job when discharged; WCJ denied the claim petition for benefits.
The Board affirmed; on appeal claimant argued the WCJ capriciously disregarded unrefuted testimony. This Court affirmed, holding the WCJ’s credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence and not a capricious disregard of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant was performing her pre-injury job when discharged	Rovenolt: she was self-modifying duties and Dr. Kline showed she could not perform regular duties	Employer: Claimant was working full duty at discharge; medical opinion is not entitled to weight	WCJ/COA: Claimant was performing pre-injury duties when fired; WCJ reasonably rejected Dr. Kline and claimant’s unsupported self-modification testimony
Whether WCJ capriciously disregarded competent, uncontradicted evidence	Rovenolt: WCJ ignored unrefuted testimony of claimant and Dr. Kline	Employer: WCJ has discretion to accept/reject testimony and explained reasons for rejecting evidence	Court: No capricious disregard; WCJ properly exercised credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence
Whether Claimant proved loss of earning power due to work injury	Rovenolt: reduced earnings tied to injury-related limitations	Employer: loss of earnings not shown to result from injury because claimant was performing regular duties	Court: Follows Donahay—if performing regular duties, reduction in earnings not attributable to injury; claimant failed to meet burden
Standard of review for WCJ findings	Rovenolt: contends legal error in findings	Employer: findings are factual and binding if supported by substantial evidence	Court: reviews for errors of law, constitutional violation, or lack of substantial evidence; here substantial evidence supported WCJ findings

Donahay v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 109 A.3d 787 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (loss of earning power must be attributable to the work injury for benefits to be due)
Wintermyer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (defines capricious disregard and appellate review for such error)
Newcomer Products v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 826 A.2d 69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (WCJ may reject uncontradicted testimony; credibility determinations are for the WCJ)
Capasso v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 851 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (WCJ may disbelieve claimant and medical testimony and must explain reasons)
Sherrod v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 666 A.2d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and evidentiary weight)
Lombardo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 698 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (reiterates WCJ authority to accept or reject testimony)
Agresta v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 850 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (WCJ findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence)