S.R. Neustein v. WCAB (PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.)
11 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Claimant (Neustein) worked for PNC as a technical support specialist and had preexisting respiratory problems (whooping cough) treated before July 23, 2010; he had work restrictions and had applied for FMLA.
- On July 23, 2010, while moving computer equipment in a dusty area at work, Claimant began severe coughing, collapsed, was taken to the ER, and was off work until September 2010; he later returned to work in a higher-paying remote position and limited his claim to medical benefits.
- Treating physicians (Drs. Trompeter, Weinberg, Strimlan) opined the July 23 event aggravated and caused ongoing respiratory/airway conditions requiring continued therapy.
- Employer’s IME (Dr. Fino) found no objective respiratory impairment as of his 2013 exam, considered the October 14, 2010 pulmonary function test valid and normal, and concluded Claimant at most had a temporary aggravation that resolved by October 14, 2010.
- The WCJ credited parts of Claimant’s testimony but rejected some embellishments, found Dr. Fino credible, concluded Claimant sustained a work-related injury limited to a temporary exacerbation of a preexisting condition, and awarded benefits from July 23 to October 14, 2010.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ; Claimant appealed to this Court, arguing insufficient evidence for the WCJ’s findings and erroneous rejection of treating physicians’ opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s July 23, 2010 event produced a lasting work-related injury or only a temporary aggravation | Neustein: treating doctors show the event caused ongoing, work-related respiratory conditions requiring continued care | Employer: IME shows only a temporary aggravation that resolved by Oct. 14, 2010, supported by valid testing and return to work | Held: WCJ’s finding of a temporary aggravation with full recovery as of Oct. 14, 2010 is supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
| Whether the WCJ improperly discredited treating physicians and ignored their evidence | Neustein: WCJ capriciously disregarded competent, uncontested treating-physician evidence | Employer: WCJ permissibly evaluated credibility and relied on IME explaining why treating opinions were unsupported | Held: Court defers to WCJ credibility determinations; treating physicians were considered but found not credible |
| Whether substantial evidence supports termination of benefits as of Oct. 14, 2010 | Neustein: record lacks substantial evidence to support recovery date; other objective tests support ongoing injury | Employer: Valid October 14, 2010 PFT and other normal studies support recovery; claimant returned to work | Held: Substantial competent evidence (including valid PFT and IME) supports termination date |
| Whether Employer lacked reasonable basis to contest and WCJ erred by not awarding attorney fees | Neustein: Employer lacked reasonable basis; attorney fees should be awarded | Employer: had reasonable basis to contest given conflicting medical evidence | Held: WCJ correctly found Employer had reasonable basis to contest; no attorney-fee award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (claimant bears burden to prove all elements of workers’ compensation claim)
- Coyne v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Villanova Univ.), 942 A.2d 939 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (burden includes proving duration of disability)
- Waldemeer Park, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (definition and review standard for substantial evidence)
- A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verdi), 78 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and evidentiary weight)
- US Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Johnston), 713 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (WCJ free to accept or reject medical testimony)