 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bucher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/12/2002
Sharon Bucher (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed a decision of a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) granting the termination petition of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare/YDC & YFC (Employer) and denying Claimant's modification, reinstatement, and review petitions. We affirm.
Claimant sustained a work-related back injury, described as a "lumbar strain," on September 10, 1991. Employer issued a notice of compensation payable for temporary total disability benefits. In 1992, the parties executed a supplemental agreement stipulating that Claimant had returned to work on March 9, 1992 at reduced wages, entitling Claimant to partial disability benefits. Ten days after returning to work, however, Claimant had a non-work-related heart attack. She never returned to her position, but continued to receive partial disability benefits.
On March 9, 1999, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injury as of December 24, 1998. Claimant denied the material allegations of Employer's petition and thereafter filed her own modification, reinstatement, and review petitions. These petitions alleged that the description of the work injury set forth in the notice of compensation payable was erroneous, that Claimant's condition worsened as of July 1, 1994, and that she suffered a decrease in her earning capacity. A hearing was held before the WCJ on these consolidated matters. Employer presented, among other things, the deposition testimony and supplemental report of Michael Dawson, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Claimant presented, among other things, the deposition testimony of Gene W. Reisinger, D.O., a board-certified family practitioner.
After reviewing the evidence, the WCJ found credible the testimony of Dr. Dawson that Claimant had recovered from her work-related injury within six months of its occurrence and that any current complaints regarding Claimant's back are related to a pre-existing lumbar degenerative disc disease with spinal stenosis. Dr. Dawson further opined that it was coincidence that Claimant's disc disease became symptomatic in September 1991 when the work injury occurred. The WCJ found not credible the testimony of Dr. Reisinger that Claimant's multiple disc herniations are related to the 1991 work injury and that Claimant is totally disabled as a result. Accordingly, the WCJ granted Employer's termination petition and denied Claimant's modification, reinstatement, and review petitions. The Board affirmed, and this petition for review followed.
This Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the WCJ's necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether an error of law or a constitutional violation occurred. Columbo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Hofmann), 638 A.2d 477 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). The WCJ is the sole arbiter of the credibility and the weight of testimony and other evidence, and he or she is free to reject or accept the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Id. So long as the findings of the WCJ are supported by substantial evidence, they must be accepted as conclusive on appeal. Id.; Dancison v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Hills Senior High School Claims Management Service), 602 A.2d 423 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 532 Pa. 666, 616 A.2d 987 (1992). Further, this Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the WCJ, Employer in this matter, extending to that party the benefit of all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence. State Workmen's Insurance F
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|