Nestle USA, Inc./Vitality v. WCAB (Gallen), Nestle USA, Inc./Vitality v. WCAB (Gallen)

Claimant (Shawn Gallen), a Nestle/Vitality service technician, developed Legionnaires’ disease in late June 2013, was hospitalized, intubated, suffered an anoxic brain injury, and is permanently disabled.
Claim petition filed alleging workplace exposure from servicing/refurbishing beverage machines that sprayed contaminated water; Employer denied causation.
Evidence included Claimant’s testimony, treating physician Lawrence R. Peck, a Pennsylvania Dept. of Health June 2013 Legionella health alert, and lay witnesses about Claimant’s pool work; Employer relied on infectious disease expert Dr. Richard Snepar and industrial hygienist H. Tim Frazer.
Dr. Peck (treating physician) opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Claimant contracted Legionnaires’ disease from occupational exposure to water/aerosols produced during machine servicing and that the brain injury was secondary to the disease.
Employer experts testified the source of infection was unknown, that beverage machines are unlikely to support Legionella growth or aerosolize it, and that no causal link could be established to work.
The WCJ credited Claimant and Dr. Peck, rejected Employer experts’ opinions, awarded indemnity and medical benefits; the Board affirmed; Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s Order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gallen)	Defendant's Argument (Nestle)	Held
Whether Claimant proved work-related causation for Legionnaires’ disease	Dr. Peck’s testimony (and Claimant’s credible history) shows occupational exposure to contaminated water during repairs caused the disease and resulting brain injury	Causation is unknown; employer experts say machines unlikely to aerosolize Legionella; Dr. Peck’s opinion is speculative and equivocal	Court held Dr. Peck’s opinion, considered as a whole and credited by the WCJ, was unequivocal enough to constitute substantial competent evidence of causation
Whether the WCJ issued a reasoned decision under Section 422(a)	WCJ explained credibility choices and tied findings to evidence (treating doctor, claimant demeanor, Health Alert)	WCJ failed to articulate objective bases for preferring Dr. Peck over employer experts	Court held the WCJ sufficiently explained reasons for crediting Dr. Peck and discrediting other testimony; decision was reasoned
Whether the WCJ capriciously disregarded competent evidence	N/A (Claimant defended WCJ’s consideration)	WCJ ignored evidence that Legionella is widespread, machines unlikely to aerosolize, and other nonoccupational exposure possibilities	Court held WCJ did not capriciously disregard evidence; it expressly considered and rejected conflicting evidence based on credibility findings

Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Thomas), 725 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (when injury is not obviously work-related, unequivocal medical testimony is required)
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lucas), 465 A.2d 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (medical testimony need not be absolutely certain; examine testimony as a whole)
Lewis v. Commonwealth, 498 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1985) (expert must opine that, in his professional judgment, the condition came from the assigned cause, not mere possibility)
Somerset Welding & Steel v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lee), 650 A.2d 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (medical experts may rely on claimant’s history if WCJ accepts that history)
Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (Section 422(a) requires WCJ to explain reasons for discrediting competent evidence)
Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USX Corp.), 862 A.2d 137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition and high bar for capricious disregard of evidence)
Brooks Drug, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Patrick), 636 A.2d 246 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (medical testimony need not be unqualifiedly certain so long as expert’s opinion does not recant and is credited by factfinder)