M. Wharton v. WCAB (Department of Corrections), M. Wharton v. WCAB (Department of Corrections)

Claimant Monique Wharton injured her right shoulder and cervical spine as a prison guard on November 20, 2010; parties stipulated to a right shoulder strain/sprain and cervical sprain/strain (Original Stipulation), later adopted by a WCJ.
A subsequent stipulation (adopted July 30, 2013) stated Claimant returned to light/sedentary duty with no wage loss and expressly reserved the parties’ rights to further litigate the description of injury.
Employer filed a Termination Petition (Jan. 3, 2014) asserting full recovery and later filed a Suspension Petition and issued a Notification of Suspension after Claimant returned to work in Oct. 2014; Claimant filed a Challenge Petition.
WCJ Beck granted the Termination Petition (Oct. 19, 2015), dismissed the Suspension and Challenge petitions as moot; the Board affirmed and Claimant appealed to this Court.
Claimant later developed/was diagnosed with cervical herniations and radiculopathy; deposition of treating physician Dr. Davidoff occurred Aug. 26, 2014 (before the final WCJ hearing in Nov. 2014).
The central dispute: whether doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (per Weney) barred litigation of Claimant’s newly-asserted medical conditions despite the stipulations’ reservation language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata/collateral estoppel barred Claimant from litigating additional cervical injuries after stipulation	Wharton: stipulations expressly reserved rights to litigate injury description; she lacked formal diagnosis before the stipulation adoption and thus could not have litigated earlier	Employer: nature and causation of additional injuries were known (or should have been known) earlier; Weney bars subsequent amendment	Court: Weney is distinguishable; reservation language + evidence (Dr. Davidoff deposition before final hearing) and WCJ’s factual finding of cervical herniations permit litigation of additional injuries

Weney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 960 A.2d 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (preclusion applied where claimant should have litigated additional injuries earlier)
Walter v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Evangelical Cmty. Hosp.), 128 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (WCJ may amend NCP during litigation when evidence shows NCP is materially incorrect; fairness assessed by totality of circumstances)
Namani v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (A. Duie Pyle), 32 A.3d 850 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (technical res judicata bars matters that were or should have been litigated)
Henion v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Firpo & Sons, Inc.), 776 A.2d 362 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (explanation of technical res judicata principles)