Soja v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 574
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Soja sustained a 2005 back injury via work, which Hillis-Carnes accepted; he returned to work.
- In 2006 he aggravated the underlying condition; employer paid total disability for one month and then suspended benefits.
- Claimant filed a reinstatement petition in 2006 seeking temporary total disability; hearings ran from 2007 to 2008.
- WCJ found as of November 1, 2006, Claimant was disabled, but by April 24, 2008 he could perform work; testimony of ongoing disability was rejected.
- Surveillance video from April 24, 2008 showed Claimant walking without a cane and engaging in activities inconsistent with continued total disability.
- Board affirmed the WCJ’s denial of ongoing disability as of April 24, 2008; this Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May video surveillance alone sustain reinstatement findings? | Soja contends video is insufficient to negate ongoing disability in reinstatement. | Hillis-Carnes argues video cannot alone prove cessation of disability; credibility and other evidence matter. | Video alone insufficient; credibilty and other evidence required, but supports rejection of ongoing disability. |
| Who bears burden of proof in reinstatement petitions? | Soja argues he proved recurrence; burden ends once disability shown. | Hillis-Carnes contends claimant must prove continuing disability; employer bears burden if needed. | Claimant must prove that earning power is adversely affected by the same disability; burden does not shift to employer absent other contexts. |
| Did the WCJ properly credit or discredit medical and lay testimony? | Soja asserts continued disabling pain was proven by medical and lay testimony. | Hillis-Carnes asserts credibility determinations may be made by the WCJ and can reject conflicting testimony. | WCJ credited some testimony, discredited others, and surveillance aided credibility assessment; Board affirmed. |
| Did Claimant prove continuing disability through pendency of reinstatement? | Soja claimed ongoing disability from November 1, 2006, through pendency; burden shift argued to Employer after a single day of disability. | Hillis-Carnes argues burden remains with claimant to prove ongoing disability through reinstatement. | Claimant failed to prove continuing disability as of April 24, 2008; burden stayed with claimant to prove ongoing effects. |
| Are Bufford and Hinton distinctions applicable to reinstatement burdens here? | Soja relies on Bufford/Hinton to shift burden after initial proof of disability. | Hillis-Carnes argues reinstatement context governs burden differently; video does not prove cessation alone. | Distinct reinstatement framework governs; claimant bears burden to show persisted disability; video cannot by itself fulfill that. |
Key Cases Cited
- John B. Kelly Co., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Davis), 303 A.2d 255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (surveillance admissible to impeach but not to prove disability alone)
- Rossi v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (City of Hazleton), 642 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (surveillance aids fact finding; not sole evidence of disability)
- Bufford v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2010) (reinstatement burden varies by context; initial disability proof required)
- Hinton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 787 A.2d 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (presumption of unresolved injury in reinstatement; burden considerations)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (McGinn), 879 A.2d 838 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (burden and evidence considerations in reinstatement petitions)
- Somerset Welding and Steel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Lee), 650 A.2d 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (burden to prove continuing disability in claim proceedings)
- Steglik v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Delta Gulf Corporation), 755 A.2d 69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (WCJ credibility determinations; ultimate finder of fact)
- De Battiste v. Anthony Laudadio and Son, 74 A.2d 784 (Pa. Super. 1950) (earlier principle on disability and evidence)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Brown), 830 A.2d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (scope of review—substantial evidence standard)