Sauer Ex Rel. Sauer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
26 A.3d 531
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Sauer sustained a work injury to the neck and right shoulder on November 20, 2001, described in the NCP as C4-5 and C5-6 cervical disc herniations and right shoulder strain, with total disability benefits being paid.
- August 16, 2007, Sauer returned to modified-duty work with no wage loss, and Verizon suspended benefits and then terminated Sauer on August 17, 2007.
- In October 2007 Sauer petitioned for reinstatement of total disability benefits as of August 17, 2007, alleging termination through no fault of his own; in December 2007 he filed a petition to expand the injury description to include depression, rotator cuff tear, radiculopathy, and carpal tunnel syndrome; the petitions were consolidated.
- Sauer’s deposition and treatment histories included psychological treatment for depression and several surgeon and psychologist opinions regarding disability and causation; surveillance photos suggested activities beyond claimed limitations.
- The WCJ credited the psychiatrist Dr. Ladenheim over the psychologist Dr. Kayes and sustained that Sauer’s activities exceeded his alleged limitations; the WCJ found Sauer was terminated for misconduct and not due to the work injury, denying reinstatement and expanding the injury description.
- The Board affirmed the WCJ’s rulings, Sauer’s personal representative appealed, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed, noting mootness of the review petition after Sauer’s death and procedural posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge for alleged misconduct bars reinstatement of total disability benefits | Sauer’s loss of earnings arose from the work injury, not misconduct; he had not returned to his pre-injury job and Dr. Salkind supported disability. | The discharge for misrepresentation of capabilities and self-employment evidence shows lack of good faith and justifies denial of reinstatement. | Discharge for misconduct can deny reinstatement; evidence supported that Sauer misrepresented abilities and self-employment, denying reinstatement. |
| Whether the WCJ erred in not addressing expanded physical injuries in the NCP | Dr. Salkind identified additional physical injuries (degenerative changes, radiculopathy, rotator cuff tear, carpal tunnel) that should be included; WCJ failed to make findings. | WCJ relied on credibility determinations; psychological component previously addressed; no need to remand for additional physical injuries. | The review petition was moot as to remand, since the Board affirmed; the WCJ’s failure to remand did not warrant reversal given the procedural posture and lack of outstanding medical findings to be remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kane v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Weis Markets, Inc.), 682 A.2d 17 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (reinstatement when fault did not cause loss of earnings, but limited by available work)
- Second Breath v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gurski), 799 A.2d 892 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (misconduct inquiry is for the WCJ; consequences of discharge depend on good faith)
- Vista International Hotel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Daniels), 742 A.2d 649 (Pa. 1999) (workplace discharge may be based on misconduct; affects disability status)
- Edwards v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Sear's Logistic Services), 770 A.2d 805 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (illustrates misconduct threshold in suspensions)
- St. Luke's Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Ingle), 823 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (remains within misconduct/discipline context for reinstatement denial)
- Sherrod v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Thoroughgood, Inc.), 666 A.2d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (credibility determinations are binding on appeal)
- Saville v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pathmark Stores, Inc.), 756 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (weight of evidence is for the WCJ; credibility matters)