 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curl v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board2/11/2002
Submitted: December 14, 2001
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Raymond Curl (Claimant) petitions for review from the May 14, 2001 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that reversed and remanded a decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying the petition to modify workers' compensation benefits filed by Arnold Office Furniture Company (Employer). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings.
On December 16, 1991, Claimant suffered a work-related injury in the nature of right-side sciatica due to a herniated disc at the L5-S1 level. Employer issued a notice of compensation payable awarding Claimant $300.00 per week in workers' compensation benefits. Thereafter, on July 21, 1997, Employer filed a petition to modify benefits alleging that Claimant had failed to act in good faith with respect to two job referrals made by Employer.
During the WCJ hearings, Employer raised the issue of Claimant's wages as the owner of a franchise. Accordingly, both parties submitted testimony concerning Claimant's financial status. Additionally, Claimant was cross- examined regarding two interviews that he attended as a result of job referrals from Employer. Claimant testified that during an interview for a cashier position, he informed the interviewer of his previous wages. Similarly, Claimant acknowledged that during an interview for a security dispatcher position, he informed the interviewer that the work hours conflicted with the hours of his home business. Claimant further testified that although he was probably capable of performing the cashier position, he was not sure that he could perform the security dispatcher position.
In a December 2, 1999 decision, the WCJ found the testimony of Claimant, his wife, and his accountant to be credible. He specifically found that Claimant applied for the two positions in good faith. The WCJ further found the testimony of Employer's medical expert to be credible to the extent that he opined that Claimant was capable of performing work within restrictions; his testimony was otherwise rejected. Based upon the accepted evidence, the WCJ concluded that Employer failed to meet its burden of proof.
On appeal, the Board reversed the WCJ's determination. Citing Beckett v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Keyserv Group), 674 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), the Board determined that Claimant's statements made during the job interviews amounted to sabotage of employment opportunities. Accordingly, the Board reversed the WCJ's determination denying Employer's petition to modify benefits. In addition, the Board remanded the matter to the WCJ for a calculation of benefits from the date of Claimant's interview for the security dispatcher position and based on the wages of that position. The Board's order allowed for the taking of additional testimony limited to those issues. This appeal followed.
Our review of the WCJ's findings of fact leads us to the conclusion that the WCJ's order, as written, was insufficient for adequate Board review. In Findings of Fact Numbers 19 and 20, the WCJ found as follows:
19. [Claimant] made a good faith effort in applying for the two jobs forwarded by [Employer] but was not offered a job.
20. [Claimant] did not earn wages in the year 1997 as a result of his self-employment. (Findings of Fact 19 and 20)
In its decision, the Board assumed that Employer met its burden under the second prong of Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Constr. Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987), and that the WCJ employed this analysis. 6 The findings of fact, however, do not sup
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.
|
|