Miller v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 161
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant sustained a work-related left arm injury (left spiral humeral fracture, shoulder adhesive capsulitis, radial nerve palsy) on December 20, 2005, accepted by employer.
- Claimant received TTD and then partial benefits under a 2009 stipulation that continued so long as earnings were below average weekly wage and related to the injury.
- Claimant underwent two surgeries (May 10, 2006; August 4, 2009) and has not been released to full-duty work.
- Claimant filed a claim petition on August 12, 2008 seeking a specific loss of the left arm under Section 306(c) of the Act.
- WCJ found no specific loss; Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court recognized error in the legal standard but upheld denial based on the facts.
- Surveillance videos and employee testimony showed Claimant could use her left hand/forearm for work and daily activities, though with limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the WCJ correctly state the standard for specific loss under Section 306? | Miller argues the WCJ misstated the standard and should rely on medical evidence supporting a specific loss. | Wal-Mart contends the WCJ properly weighed evidence and that no specific loss was proven. | WCJ erred in stating the standard; however, substantial evidence supports denial of specific loss. |
| Whether Claimant proved a permanent loss of use of the left arm for all practical intents and purposes. | Claimant asserts permanent loss due to functional impairment and expert opinions of total loss of function. | Employer contends impairment is partial and not a permanent loss for all practical purposes. | Claimant did not establish a complete loss of use for all practical intents and purposes. |
| Is the finding that the injury is not permanent supported by substantial evidence? | Claimant argues permanency was proven by Dr. Baddick’s testimony. | Wal-Mart argues contemporaneous medical opinions and recovery potential negate permanency. | Not supported by substantial evidence; permanency issue was not proven. |
| Did the evidence support a finding that Claimant retained functional use of her left arm for work/daily activities? | Claimant argues that limitations show loss of use in daily activities. | Employer points to surveillance and medical evidence showing continued use of hand/forearm. | Evidence supports continued functional use with limitations, not a specific loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobi v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Wawa, Inc.), 942 A.2d 263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (specific loss requires loss of use for all practical intents and purposes; not all-or-nothing)
- Malobicky v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 753 A.2d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (loss of use can be found without complete loss of the injured part; shoulder may suffice)
- HGO, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Hadley), 651 A.2d 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (shoulder injuries can yield specific loss based on impairment and use limitations)