O'Neill v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
29 A.3d 50
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant injured left wrist at work in 1993, described as left carpal tunnel syndrome, and later found to have multiple diagnosed injuries; prior WCJ decision expanded injury and awarded total disability; employer later filed a termination petition in 2007; claimant filed a Review Medical Treatment petition seeking travel expenses and unpaid medical bills; employer filed a Utilization Review petition in 2008; WCJ consolidated the three petitions and issued decisions denying some petitions and granting others, including mileage reimbursement for travel to treatment and a termination based on full recovery by Dr. Cash’s opinion; Board affirmed the WCJ’s decisions and claimant sought review in Commonwealth Court, which affirmed as to the key issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Cash’s testimony was competent to terminate benefits. | Claimant argues Dr. Cash rejected established injuries, rendering testimony incompetent. | Employer contends Dr. Cash’s testimony, read as a whole, supports recovery and is competent. | Dr. Cash’s testimony was competent and supported termination. |
| Whether Dr. Cash acknowledged the accepted thoracic outlet syndrome and work-related injuries. | Claimant argues Dr. Cash rejected the accepted diagnoses. | Employer argues Dr. Cash accepted diagnoses but doubted treatment; recovery still shown. | Dr. Cash recognized prior diagnoses and, taken as a whole, supported recovery.” |
| Whether Claimant is entitled to mileage reimbursement for travel to treatment. | Claimant needed travel due to lack of local treatment options. | Employer contested local availability but did not rebut claimant’s testimonial basis. | Claimant’s mileage reimbursement awarded; travel necessity proven. |
| Whether deposition costs for Dr. Fried are recoverable as litigation expenses. | Costs related to Dr. Fried’s deposition should be reimbursable. | Costs must relate to matter on which claimant prevailed; deposition not relied upon in travel/medical treatment decision. | Deposition costs not reimbursable under Section 440(a) as they did not relate to the prevailing issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagman, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 785 A.2d 1087 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (termination petition invalid where NCP and medical evidence conflict)
- To v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Insaco, Inc.), 819 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (competent despite skepticism if not rejecting accepted injury)
- Koszowski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Greyhound Lines, Inc.), 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 253, 595 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (employer may terminate with competent evidence of full recovery)
- Westmoreland County v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 942 A.2d 213 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (testimony must recognize injury; recovery can support termination)
- To v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (America Service Group), 3 A.3d 734 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (medical expert need not deny injury to prove recovery; reliance on entire testimony)