McDaniel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
157 A.3d 544
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant (McDaniel) was injured as a passenger in a delivery truck on July 21, 2010, reporting neck, back and elbow pain the next day; he later tested positive for marijuana and was laid off.
- Claimant filed a claim petition (Sept. 8, 2010) alleging total disability from the July 21 work accident; Employer denied the petition and raised termination-for-cause based on the positive drug test.
- WCJ Santoro initially granted benefits, crediting Claimant and Dr. Schina, but omitted consideration of several Employer exhibits and failed to address the drug-test termination defense; she later issued an amended decision sua sponte that still did not resolve those defects.
- The Board vacated WCJ Santoro’s decisions and remanded for de novo proceedings, recommending assignment to a new WCJ; the case was ultimately reassigned to WCJ Young with the parties’ apparent agreement.
- WCJ Young granted the claim in part (finding compensable cervical and lumbar strains) but suspended/terminated wage-loss benefits on the ground Claimant’s loss of earnings resulted from termination for cause (drug test) and that Claimant had recovered by Jan. 6, 2011.
- Claimant appealed to this Court arguing the Board exceeded its authority by remanding to a different WCJ for de novo proceedings; the Court affirmed the Board’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McDaniel) | Defendant's Argument (Employer/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board improperly remanded the case for de novo proceedings to a different WCJ | Board lacked authority to remand to a new WCJ; remand amounted to an improper rehearing/second bite for Employer | Remand was proper because the original WCJ failed to consider substantial evidence and omitted addressing Employer’s key defense | The Court held remand for de novo proceedings was proper and not prohibited; Board did not exceed discretion |
| Whether the Board’s remand amounted to an impermissible rehearing | Remand gave Employer another chance to relitigate (impermissible) | Remand required full review because original decision failed to consider much of the record and key issue | Court rejected McDaniel’s rehearing argument; remand was corrective, not unfairly duplicative |
| Whether WCJ Santoro’s amended decision cured the defects of her original decision | Amended decision was valid and should stand | Original and amended decisions still failed to address substantial evidence and the drug-test termination defense; Board properly vacated them | Court agreed Board could vacate and remand since WCJ did not adequately review/ address evidence and defenses |
| Whether reassignment to a new WCJ was improper given statutory remand language | Section 419 requires remand to same referee or limits reassignment | Section 419 permits remand to “a referee” and does not mandate the same or prohibit a different referee; parties had agreed to reassignment | Court held section 419 imposes no requirement to remand to the same WCJ; reassignment permissible and parties had consented |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Delphi Co.), 560 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1989) (Board remand appropriate where WCJ closed record prematurely and failed to consider determinative material)
- Varkey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cardone Industries), 827 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (an amended WCJ decision that substantively changes analysis without party agreement may be invalid)
- Butcher v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Treadway Resort Inn), 517 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (same principle regarding impermissible sua sponte substantive amendment by WCJ)