S. Vandunk v. WCAB (SD of Philadelphia)
996 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Claimant Susette Vandunk, a Philadelphia public school teacher, alleged she was struck in the face by a student on January 7, 2015, sustaining facial, neck, dental and psychological injuries.
- Employer issued a medical-only notice but denied wage-loss/disability; Claimant filed a claim petition for total disability and a review petition for disfigurement.
- Medical evidence: Claimant treated emergently (stitches), saw panel and treating physicians (Dr. Lipton, Dr. Solberg, chiropractor), an IME dentist (Dr. Kornbrot), and a treating psychologist (Dr. Raditz) who diagnosed adjustment disorder and opined Claimant was disabled from returning to work.
- Employer’s examiners (Dr. Fras, orthopedic surgeon; Dr. Fenichel, psychiatrist) each examined Claimant once and concluded she had recovered physically and had no disabling psychiatric disorder, respectively.
- The WCJ found Claimant sustained certain work injuries but concluded physical disabilities resolved by May 8, 2015, and that mental-health diagnoses did not cause a disabling condition; the Board affirmed those findings (but reversed as to disfigurement and dental benefits). Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports WCJ finding Claimant fully recovered physically | Vandunk: WCJ ignored her, Dr. Lipton’s testimony showing ongoing physical disability | Employer: WCJ reasonably credited Dr. Fras that injuries resolved and no restrictions | Affirmed — WCJ credibility choices supported by record; physical injuries found resolved by May 8, 2015 |
| Whether Claimant suffered disabling psychological injuries | Vandunk: Dr. Raditz’s diagnosis and her testimony establish disabling psychiatric injury preventing return to teaching | Employer: Dr. Fenichel’s exam shows no psychiatric disorder or disability | Affirmed — WCJ credited Dr. Fenichel over Dr. Raditz and rejected disability opinion; findings supported by credibility determinations |
| Whether WCJ impermissibly disregarded evidence or failed to provide reasoned decision | Vandunk: Credibility rulings were arbitrary and used as a pretext to reach result | Employer: WCJ provided reasons (observations and preference for treating/IME exams) and has province over credibility | Affirmed — Court defers to WCJ on credibility; WCJ provided sufficient explanation |
| Scope of appellate review: whether Court can reweigh evidence | Vandunk: Requests de novo review to adopt her version of events | Employer: Appellate review limited to legal error, constitutional claims, procedure, or absence of substantial evidence | Court: Confirms it cannot reweigh evidence and is bound by WCJ credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- 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)
- Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Center for Rehab), 15 A.3d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (same principle on credibility deference)
- US Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Johnston), 713 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (WCJ may accept or reject medical testimony in whole or in part)
- Lehigh County Vo–Tech School v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wolfe), 652 A.2d 797 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (scope of appellate review in workers’ compensation matters)
- Dorsey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Crossing Construction Company), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (requirements for a reasoned WCJ credibility determination)