P. Choice v. WCAB (Arentzen)
P. Choice v. WCAB (Arentzen) - 1597 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Claimant slipped on ice in Employer's parking lot on Feb. 10, 2014, and later sought treatment for neck and low‑back pain; Employer initially issued a medical‑only temporary notice but disputed ongoing injury.
- Claimant worked modified/light duty (operations assistant) after the fall until May 28, 2014, when his treating physician removed him from work; he continued treatment with a neurosurgeon, physical therapy, and injections.
- WCJ hearing evidence included: Claimant (live), employer surveillance video of the fall, treating and independent physicians (depositions), and coworker/supervisor testimony disputing severity and credibility.
- WCJ credited Claimant and his neurosurgeon Dr. Freese, found cervical herniations (C5‑6, C6‑7), lumbar protrusion (L4‑5), and related radiculopathy/strain; denied Employer’s termination and suspension petitions.
- Board affirmed; Employer appealed alleging capricious disregard of evidence, failure to issue a reasoned decision, findings not supported by substantial evidence, and reliance on incompetent medical opinion.
- Court affirmed the Board: WCJ did not capriciously disregard evidence, issued a reasoned decision adequate for review, findings were supported by substantial evidence, and medical opinion relied on credited facts and was competent.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ capriciously disregarded evidence (video, supervisor, Dr. Sachs) | Testimony and video support Claimant; WCJ viewed video and credited Claimant | WCJ ignored/failed to address exculpatory video and testimony, warranting relief | No capricious disregard; WCJ viewed video, found it ambiguous/consistent with Claimant, and need not address every piece of evidence |
| Whether WCJ issued a reasoned decision under Section 422(a) | WCJ provided bases for credibility choices (live testimony, consistency, medical evidence) | WCJ gave boilerplate or non‑specific reasons, preventing meaningful review | Decision was reasoned: WCJ articulated sufficient bases, especially for live witness credibility; not required to discuss every deposition point |
| Whether findings are supported by substantial evidence | Medical records, treating physician actions, Claimant’s consistent complaints, and Dr. Freese’s exams support findings | Surveillance and defense medical opinions show recovery; findings are contrary to evidence | Findings are supported by substantial evidence when viewed favorably to claimant; many employer challenges were immaterial or rebutted by record |
| Whether reliance on Dr. Freese was reliance on incompetent opinion | Dr. Freese relied on credited history and exams; opinion was competent | Dr. Freese relied on Claimant’s allegedly false account, making his opinion incompetent | Dr. Freese’s opinion was competent because it rested on evidence the WCJ credited; incompetence requires dependence on proven false information |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USX Corp.-Fairless Works), 862 A.2d 137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (defines capricious disregard and deference to WCJ credibility findings)
- Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (capricious disregard defined)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (reasoned decision standard; live testimony credibility)
- Green v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Airways), 28 A.3d 936 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (reasoned decision standard explanation)
- Green v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Airways), 155 A.3d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (WCJ need only make findings necessary to resolve issues)
- Reed v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Allied Signal, Inc.), 114 A.3d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (credibility determinations are the WCJ’s province)
- Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Easterling), 113 A.3d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Casne v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Stat Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (when expert opinion is incompetent due to false foundation)
- Newcomer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Ward Trucking Corp.), 692 A.2d 1062 (Pa. 1997) (expert opinion competence principles)