R. Gring v. WCAB (Industrial Services, Inc.)
1545 & 1546 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Claimant Rick Gring sustained two work injuries: an April 8, 2008 right biceps tendon tear and a July 21, 2010 right shoulder (partial supraspinatus) tear; Employer initially accepted both injuries and later suspended benefits when Claimant returned to work.
- Claimant returned to his pre-injury truck-driver position in May 2011; medical records and treating physician releases showed a full-duty return with no work restrictions.
- Employer suspended benefits after Claimant returned to work and later the plant closed in February 2013; Claimant filed a Reinstatement Petition (loss of earning power as of April 27, 2013) and Employer filed a Termination Petition for the 2008 injury.
- The WCJ held hearings and found Claimant had returned to full-duty work without restrictions and thus failed to establish a presumption that layoff was causally related to the 2010 injury; WCJ granted Employer’s termination of the 2008 benefits and denied reinstatement for the 2010 claim.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; this Court reviewed whether the WCJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether legal errors occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was entitled to a presumption that his layoff and loss of earnings were caused by the 2010 work injury (Reinstatement) | Gring: his 2010 injury prevented return to his time‑of‑injury job and thus he was performing a modified position before layoff, triggering the presumption of causal relation | Employer: Claimant returned to his pre‑injury full‑duty truck‑driver job without restrictions, so no presumption; Claimant must affirmatively prove causation | Court: Affirmed WCJ — substantial evidence supports finding Claimant returned to full duty with no restrictions; no presumption applies and Claimant failed to prove injury caused loss of earnings |
| Whether WCJ erred by denying reinstatement on the record | Gring: medical testimony and his own testimony show restrictions and inability to perform without help, implying modified duty | Employer: treating doctor released him to full duty; medical testimony supports no restrictions; Claimant worked full duty through plant closure | Court: Rejects Gring; factual findings supported by testimony and records, no reweighing of evidence allowed |
| Whether WCJ erred in refusing litigation costs | Gring: requested costs (not decided on merits here) | Employer: opposed (not addressed due to disposition of main issue) | Court: Not reached — disposition of primary issue resolved case so ancillary claims not addressed |
| Whether WCJ erred in denying unreasonable‑contest attorney’s fees | Gring: sought fees for unreasonable contest | Employer: opposed (not addressed) | Court: Not reached — unnecessary to address after affirming WCJ on main issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (QVC, Inc.), 102 A.3d 591 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (explains presumption of causal relation when claimant returns to modified duty and is later laid off vs. burden when claimant returns to pre‑injury job without restrictions)
- Sell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (LNP Eng’g), 771 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2001) (WCJ credibility findings and evidence weighing are for factfinder; appellate courts may not reweigh)
- Lahr Mech. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Floyd), 933 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard that appellate review asks whether record contains evidence a reasonable mind could accept to support WCJ findings)