R. Newman v. WCAB (Geisinger Community Health Svcs.)
R. Newman v. WCAB (Geisinger Community Health Svcs.) - 1850 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Richard Newman, a part-time psychiatrist, alleged a work-related mitral valve rupture from an exhausting on-call weekend (May 30–June 1, 2009) and filed a claim petition on September 19, 2011.
- He experienced acute fatigue after the on-call weekend, sought medical care in mid-July 2009, was diagnosed with severe mitral regurgitation in August 2009, and underwent valve repair surgery August 26, 2009.
- Newman told supervisors in early June 2009 that he was exhausted from the on-call weekend but did not identify a cardiac diagnosis to Employer until much later; he contacted physicians in 2010 and received a letter from his cardiologist in 2011.
- The WCJ credited Newman's and his cardiologist’s testimony, found the injury work-related, and awarded benefits; the Board remanded for findings about notice.
- On remand the WCJ found Newman had provided timely notice (complaints of exhaustion) and awarded benefits; the Board reversed, holding those complaints did not reasonably inform Employer of a work-related injury and that Newman failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover work-relatedness within 120 days.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, concluding (1) complaints of generic exhaustion did not satisfy Section 311 notice requirements and (2) Newman failed to exercise the objective reasonable diligence required to trigger the 120-day discovery rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether June 2009 complaints of exhaustion satisfied Section 311 notice | Newman: telling supervisors he was exhausted from work notified Employer of a work injury | Employer: exhaustion is nonspecific and does not communicate a work-related injury | Held: Complaints of post-shift fatigue insufficient to satisfy notice requirement; reversed WCJ |
| When the 120-day discovery period began under Section 311 | Newman: didn’t know injury was work-related until cardiologist letter in 2011, so notice was timely | Employer: as a physician he should have exercised reasonable diligence and known earlier (by mid/late 2009) | Held: Objective reasonable-diligence standard applied; Newman failed to act diligently; 120-day period triggered earlier, so notice was untimely |
| Whether exact diagnosis is required to provide notice | Newman: exact diagnosis not required; reporting symptoms and cause suffices (relying on Gentex) | Employer: notice must inform employer of a possible work relationship, not just general symptoms | Held: Exact diagnosis not required, but notice must reasonably convey injury and possible work-relatedness; here it did not |
| Sufficiency of WCJ’s factual findings on notice | Newman: WCJ credibility findings should stand; he credibly reported exhaustion to supervisors | Employer: WCJ failed to apply discovery rule and reasonable-diligence standard | Held: Substantial evidence supports Board’s application of law (reasonable-diligence and insufficiency of notice); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentex Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morack), 23 A.3d 528 (Pa. 2011) (holding precise diagnosis not required for notice but employer must be informed of possible work-related injury)
- Sell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (LNP Engineering), 771 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2001) (articulating objective reasonable-diligence discovery rule for Section 311)
- The Bulletin Companies v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hausmann), 960 A.2d 488 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (addressing when limitations for occupational disease claims are triggered)
- Cochran v. GAF Corp., 666 A.2d 245 (Pa. 1995) (discussing reasonable diligence standard in workplace injury discovery)
- Gribble v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cambria County Blind Association), 692 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (claimant bears burden to prove timely notice under the Act)