P. Vargas, Sr. v. WCAB (Pietro Industries, Inc.)
2315 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 14, 2016Background
- Claimant Ponciano Vargas, Sr., a laborer at Pietro Industries, slipped on scaffolding on January 16, 2013; he reported immediate low back pain radiating to the right leg and later underwent an April 25, 2013 laminectomy.
- Employer issued an NCP recognizing a lower back strain; Claimant petitioned to amend the injury description to include radiculopathy and sought benefits and medical expenses.
- Employer filed a termination petition asserting Claimant fully recovered as of November 11, 2013 and could return to work without restrictions; the petitions were consolidated before a WCJ.
- Claimant relied primarily on Dr. Daisy Rodriguez (treating/IME) who opined the 2013 injury caused his condition and precluded return to his job; her opinion referenced MRIs and EMGs showing disc pathology and radiculopathy.
- Employer relied on Dr. Gene Salkind (neurological surgeon) who, after exam and film review, attributed findings to preexisting degenerative disease, observed symptom magnification, and opined Claimant had at most a temporary lumbar strain and was fully recovered.
- The WCJ credited Dr. Salkind, found Claimant not credible (noting preexisting back pathology and inconsistencies in history), denied Claimant’s review petition, granted termination as of November 11, 2013, and the Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ’s factual findings and termination were supported by substantial evidence | Vargas argued the record supports that his 2013 work injury caused ongoing radiculopathy and disability; WCJ’s decision lacked substantial evidence | Employer argued its medical expert unequivocally showed Claimant’s complaints were not supported by objective findings, that prior degenerative disease explained imaging, and that Claimant had recovered | Held: Court affirmed; WCJ credibly credited Employer’s expert (Dr. Salkind), which constitutes substantial evidence to deny review and grant termination |
| Whether WCJ’s decision was unreasoned (credibility determinations arbitrary) | Vargas argued credibility findings were irrational and based on misapprehension of facts | Employer argued Vargas waived any reasoned-decision challenge by not raising it before the Board and that WCJ’s reasoning was supported by record | Held: Court found Vargas waived his reasoned-decision claim by failing to raise it before the Board; independent substantial-evidence review upheld WCJ’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Knight Ridder, Inc./Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.), 856 A.2d 302 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (issues not raised before Board are waived on further appeal)
- Mearion v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Franklin Smelting & Refining Co.), 703 A.2d 1080 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (same waiver principle)
- Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Am-Gard), 816 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burden on petition to correct NCP description—prove material mistake when NCP issued)
- Weismantle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Lucent Technologies), 926 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer’s burden in termination proceedings requires proof of full recovery and lack of objective findings supporting ongoing work-related pain)
- Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (US Air, Inc.), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa.) (employer meets termination burden when its medical expert unequivocally testifies claimant fully recovered, can return without restrictions, and no objective findings connect pain to work injury)
- Meadow Lakes Apartments v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (scope of appellate review limited to substantial evidence, legal error, or constitutional violation)